User talk:Valjean/Archive 27
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
| Archive 27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did I miss any?Hi, if you have a minute, please review the list of articles below. I am trying to identify our text dealing with the first part of the 7-part plan, i.e., that Trump knew he lost and lied about fraud anyway.
Thanks for any help you can offer. At the moment I'm compiling ideas in my user space using file prefix 111, and am mainly working on what could possibly evolve into a real outline article. But I've an open mind what direction to wander off in.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC) What is a "coup" in the age of Trump?Fuck everything you have usually associated with the word "coup". Get out of that tiny box that only sees a "coup" as a military overthrowal of another person in office. Follow what RS say about THIS situation. Trump tried to "recoup" ("regain something lost or expended") an election he lost by lying about his loss and refusing to relinquish power. He violated the rules of play in the USA and adopted a course of action one has seen in other, usually third world, nations where the one in power stays on after their rightful term of office has expired. What happened here is now being described by RS as a "coup". Start revising your way of thinking, because it no longer applies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Check inI'm beyond concerned about current affairs, and I am guessing you might be too. Are you OK though? Feel free to email me if you wanna talk off wiki about.... well, about anything. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me for not noticing this context for you starting this thread. WTF? Maybe just deleting or striking the first paragraph of an otherwise serious, useful, and on-topic thread would have been a good faith approach. Disappointed. That edit of yours is concerning. I was fine until now. Sheesh. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Downgrade vs deprecateWhile I respect and admire your message, you might want to consider retaining "downgrade" as a 2nd choice in the event that "deprecate" lacks sufficient consensus. Andre🚐 02:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Types of sources used at Steele dossier articleNot necessarily complete...
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC) The simple answerThe simple answer as to why Trump has not (yet) been charged with destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, witness intimidation/bribery, etc, is that he didn't actually do that stuff, or rather that there's not enough evidence out there to prove it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, MastCell, when the limited worldview of Fox News viewers comes to light, it's truly shocking how little they know of what's been happening in Trump world. Statistics from 2012 (below) show that Fox News viewers know less about current affairs than those who see no news at all. Since the advent of the Trump cult bubble, it's gotten much worse. By contrast, people who access NPR and The Daily Show are very well informed. Trump's condemnation of all media that doesn't support his lies, calling them "fake news", and his dissing of fact-checkers, has had a catastrophic effect on his supporters, keeping them in a bubble of very limited information. (See Trump's misuse of the term "fake news".) They literally don't know what's happening outside that bubble. That's why I haven't replied to the comment above. To start to unpack it would be a waste of time. What we have seen and heard from Trump's own mouth, and what all the investigations have found, has been blocked or filtered by Fox News and sources even further to the right. All other news sources, all over the world (all condemned by Trump as "fake news"), have reported these things, but Fox News and most other right-wing sources have not done it. Trump supporters tend to limit their sources to those that fail to cover anything negative about Trump, IOW those he does not condemn, which leaves a very limited group of sources. The result is comments like the above. They see Trump as the victim of a witch hunt, rather than the victim of the rightful exposure of his own narcissism, lies, corruption, and fealty to Russia and money. If any other leading politician behaved as he does, they would be treated in the same way by the media, but he's uniquely bad in every conceivable way. Why should he get a free pass? That's what his supporters want.
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 26An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Where the Crawdads Sing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American slang. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Please don't accuse of whitewashingValjean, I know we are both working in good faith even if we don't always agree. Accusations of whitewashing in edit summaries aren't helpful. Certainly we can both be acting in good faith while disagreeing. Springee (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar
Where to start cleaning upHello, Valjean. I see now that the 85 editor managed to get themselves blocked. While that's unfortunate, they've been creating quite a mess behind them and I'm curious where I should start cleaning up behind them. Thanks. BlueNoise (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Big changes, require RFCs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| This editor deserves this barnstar for being so prolific Oleleho (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
- Hi Oleleho. Thanks so much! That's very kind of you. I do need to make a clarification. I am not an admin, even though I started here in 2003. Maybe a different barnstar would be appropriate because I don't want people to get the wrong impression. Like many other non-admins, I subscribe to the Admins newsletter, and maybe that threw you off? It just has lots of good info. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
BLP sanction on Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
Hi Valjean, I am following up on a BLP sanction action you made against me on Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Review: 1) When answering a topic question about the focus of the article, I explained it was about the "quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukraine." 2) You claimed that characterization was a BLP violation and demanded I modify my claim. 3) When I refused, you deleted my comment and closed the topic with the justification that it was a "BLP vio deleted per policy." Reaction: I am perplexed by your action as the Latin term "quid pro quo" merely indicates an exchange and is definitively not pejorative. Furthermore, I added nothing to characterize it as anything other than an exchange. Whether or not the exchange was criminal is to be determined, but regardless any interaction, criminal or not, can be characterized as quid pro quo. Resolve: Would you be kind enough to cite here the policy you used for the sanction, and if done in error, would you be kind enough to reverse your action. Thank you very much! Lexlex (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean's action was appropriate, and your edit incorporated the most widely rebutted of the false, anti-Biden narrarives. Read the talk archives. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Context: You wrote: "This article covers the quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukrainian government."
- Context matters. In that context (and knowing your contribution history), where the article discusses false accusations of an improper quid pro quo (hence the reason those allegations are a disproven conspiracy theory), it's important that we (Wikipedia and "we" as editors) do not echo false accusations as if they might be true. We cannot just say something false in a neutral manner and leave it there. We, and the articles and talk pages, must make plain it is false when we mention it. We must show we are on the side of facts and never defend dubious information. Editors are not allowed to advocate fringe theories, regardless of their personal beliefs. Personal beliefs that are contrary to what RS say must never encroach on our editing, discussions, or personal user space. Fringe editors (those who are informed by unreliable sources) should keep their fringe beliefs to themselves and far from Wikipedia. Advocacy of facts, not personal ideas of "truth", is expected here. That is in line with multiple policies. In that regard, Wikipedia does take sides, so when in doubt, feel free to ask. There is a long list of things where Wikipedia does take sides. See above: #Evaluating sources in the AP2, Trumpian, post-truth era, #A caution issued elsewhere, and #Fringe beliefs.
- Wikipedia is expressly not a chat board, a democracy, or a free speech zone. Always echo and favor what RS say. Show a positive learning curve by demonstrating that the editing experience has taught you something and that your thinking is changing to be more in line with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, rather than Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, etc.
- When I voiced concern about a possible BLP violation, which requires any editor to immediately remove it (and 3rr edit warring concerns do not apply), your reply was unhelpful, so I wrote: "Your dismissive response was unhelpful." If you had been more collaborative and responded to my concerns, as required by the collaborative attitude we are supposed to maintain as editors, we wouldn't be here. You need to keep an open, honest, and civil attitude with other editors. That's basic AGF, and around here you need all the friends you can get.
- Maybe now you'd be willing to explain what you meant by quid pro quo in that instance. Please do so now so we can get onto a better footing with each other. I'd like that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I remain perplexed by your response: You concede that nothing in my reply violated BLP, and yet you sanctioned me because of your opinion of uncited "contribution history." While you are free to assume whatever you wish, I could use your help guiding me to which policy supports using edit history as a rationale to assume intent and censor future writing. Otherwise, it would seem to be WP:Original research. Lexlex (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Lexlex, I have not "sanctioned" you, just uttered some criticisms. I am not an admin, so don't have any official sanction powers. Where did I "concede" anything? Please provide an exact quote of mine. What you wrote seemed to be a BLP violation, so it was removed. That's policy. Then your unhelpful response didn't improve things. Collaboration and collegiality is best. Your fringy edit history makes me view your editing with a skeptical eye, especially in the AP2 area, such as your editing of Biden-related articles. OR refers to articles, not comments on talk pages. OR is allowed there and is often necessary when seeking new knowledge and clarity.
- Please explain what you meant by quid pro quo in that instance. You are free to describe it in detail here as long as you're asking and explaining, rather than stating it as a claim. Discussion to seek clarity is not a BLP violation. We do use common sense around here.
-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't completely figured this out until now. (Well, maybe not even now.) If you listen to official spokespeople on judicial matters, there is always an alleged in the sentence. Lexlex didn't do that. Now, I am used to reading these enough to add one in, but in some cases it is important. Until someone has been tried and found guilty, it is always alleged. So, a change to alleged quid pro quo should be enough. (Ignoring the number of people or authority of the allegees.) Note also that you can get away with more if you are obviously not an authority. SNL makes a lot of untrue statements, but then we expect that. I believe there was a case of a foreign news organization quoting The Onion as an authoritative source once. (Or more than once.) Gah4 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean you have not only criticized me, you have censored my writing for supposed cause. Call it censoring, sanctioning, or whatever term you prefer, the effect is the same (regardless of any admin privileges you hold): You are censoring me. Let's be clear: the term quid pro quo is not pejorative (see article). Your earlier assumption that it is pejorative by default and must be nuanced is simply wrong. Your reactionary demands for "clarification" due to your assumptions, and subsequent censoring of me because I don't wish to indulge your demands is my complaint here. I never wrote or even suggested elsewhere that the quid pro quo was improper and I owe you no explanation for your incorrect assumption, I would think you instead owe me an apology for this waste of our time and need to correct your mistake and move on. Lexlex (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Lexlex, this is tiring! If you would only explain your meaning at the time, we could settle this now. Instead you refuse to do so. (Unlike you, Gah4 deals with it above at 00:58, 8 November.) You are correct that quid pro quo does not have to be negative, although it often is. Context matters. In the context of your remark, making the assertion that Joe Biden had a quid pro quo with the Ukrainians is an accusation of a criminal qpq, such as Trump attempted. That is the false allegation mentioned in the article. Biden did not do that. That is the context.
- The same qpq article mentions Trump's improper attempt at a qpq in Ukraine (he was impeached for it).
- Again, I hold no admin privileges. I followed policy which requires the immediate removal of BLP violations.
- Do you believe Joe Biden had a criminal quid pro quo with the Ukrainians? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You argument seems to be: I must not only defend what I write, but also any incorrect interpretation of what I write, on your demand, or be censored? This is pragmatically not possible and violates WP:AFG. While you are certainly free to believe whatever you wish, you are not free to make demands for explanations from others and then censor them if you're not satisfied. Therefore, I gently ask again: Please admit your error, fix what you did, and move on. If you keep insisting I explain myself to you, we'll need to get others involved. 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Lexlex (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Lexlex, are you always this difficult and uncooperative? You are being a "tendentious editor": "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of...behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." You're going to have a hard row to hoe around here if you keep this up. People like you get blocked. Why not just explain what you meant by what you wrote? It's a simple request, not some odious or unreasonable demand.
- You are the one who wrote there was a "quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukrainian government" in the context of an article (Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory) that debunks "a series of false claims centered on the baseless allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma." Note that the article never calls these alleged "corrupt activities" a quid pro quo, but you used those words about them when you wrote: "This article covers the quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukrainian government." You have literally created a new accusation against Joe Biden. That's a serious matter. The only place the article uses the phrase quid pro quo is in reference to Trump's unsuccessful attempt to force Zelenskyy into a quo pro quo deal, a corrupt action that led to Trump's first impeachment.
- You are the one who wrote it, so of course, you have the burden of proof to defend what you wrote. That's basic logic. That's what adults do. So what did you mean when you wrote it? Please correct any misinterpretation that may exist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- "People like me..."? OK, I think it at this point it's pretty clear you've crossed the line so I'll refrain from reading any intent there. Introducing new grievances or claims won't obfuscate what you've already done. I've been more than reasonable with you here and given you multiple opportunities to just fix it and move on, and yet you keep doubling down. Your argument is essentially: "...just submit to me and there won't be a problem." That's not how it works because you chose to engage and censor me. I did not engage you. Appointing yourself as some kind of all-knowing speech authority who floats about and gets to interrogate and then censor others on your whims is unacceptable behavior, especially when it's based on a fundamental lack of understanding of language and snap judgements. As promised earlier, because your behavior here leads me to believe that this isn't an isolated occurrence, I will need to get others involved and come up with an appropriate course of action. Lexlex (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- You argument seems to be: I must not only defend what I write, but also any incorrect interpretation of what I write, on your demand, or be censored? This is pragmatically not possible and violates WP:AFG. While you are certainly free to believe whatever you wish, you are not free to make demands for explanations from others and then censor them if you're not satisfied. Therefore, I gently ask again: Please admit your error, fix what you did, and move on. If you keep insisting I explain myself to you, we'll need to get others involved. 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Lexlex (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean you have not only criticized me, you have censored my writing for supposed cause. Call it censoring, sanctioning, or whatever term you prefer, the effect is the same (regardless of any admin privileges you hold): You are censoring me. Let's be clear: the term quid pro quo is not pejorative (see article). Your earlier assumption that it is pejorative by default and must be nuanced is simply wrong. Your reactionary demands for "clarification" due to your assumptions, and subsequent censoring of me because I don't wish to indulge your demands is my complaint here. I never wrote or even suggested elsewhere that the quid pro quo was improper and I owe you no explanation for your incorrect assumption, I would think you instead owe me an apology for this waste of our time and need to correct your mistake and move on. Lexlex (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't completely figured this out until now. (Well, maybe not even now.) If you listen to official spokespeople on judicial matters, there is always an alleged in the sentence. Lexlex didn't do that. Now, I am used to reading these enough to add one in, but in some cases it is important. Until someone has been tried and found guilty, it is always alleged. So, a change to alleged quid pro quo should be enough. (Ignoring the number of people or authority of the allegees.) Note also that you can get away with more if you are obviously not an authority. SNL makes a lot of untrue statements, but then we expect that. I believe there was a case of a foreign news organization quoting The Onion as an authoritative source once. (Or more than once.) Gah4 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I remain perplexed by your response: You concede that nothing in my reply violated BLP, and yet you sanctioned me because of your opinion of uncited "contribution history." While you are free to assume whatever you wish, I could use your help guiding me to which policy supports using edit history as a rationale to assume intent and censor future writing. Otherwise, it would seem to be WP:Original research. Lexlex (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Let me get this right. You assert I'm guilty of an "incorrect interpretation of what" [you] "write" but won't explain how I have misinterpreted you, and that this refusal by you is somehow my fault. Is that right? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Gah4, it's an alleged quid pro quo that has been debunked, IOW we should never leave the impression it might be true or even personally think so. It's not just an unconfirmed allegation (like the peetape allegation) where some lingering doubt may be allowable. This is where we can see how Wikipedia-policy-thinking is similar to scientific skepticism, IOW critical thinking that follows the scientific method. We, like scientists, are obligated to follow the evidence/RS. Until we have better evidence, we continue to believe that the theory of gravity is correct. Until we have better sources and more knowledge, we believe that Biden acted appropriately and that the allegation is just part of Trump's counterfactual cover-up efforts.
Tim Minchin has a great beat poem on critical thinking that contains this quote:
- "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
- Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
Minchin is both funny and deadly serious. He packages some profound truths in that beat poem. It's worth listening to several times. He contrasts scientific/progressive thinking with unscientific/faith/conservative thinking. SNL is comedy and satire, like The Onion, so we expect truth to be mixed with exaggeration and other comedic tricks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am now reading Neil deGrasse Tysons Starry Messenger, which has some discussion like this. There is a quote from Thomas Henry Huxley that goes: The great tragedy of Science --- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. Gah4 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Good stuff! The Huxley family were remarkable and several members left a lasting imprint on the advancement of knowledge and culture. I have a little collection of quotes on my user page: User:Valjean#Skeptic quotes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am now reading Neil deGrasse Tysons Starry Messenger, which has some discussion like this. There is a quote from Thomas Henry Huxley that goes: The great tragedy of Science --- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. Gah4 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Informational autocracy
Hello Valjean. Just to let you know, I've removed the informational autocracy section from the Alternative facts article again, and put the information into the informational autocracy article. Perhaps you could take a look. Mucube (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Other editors' talk pages
Edits like this are basically pointless or vindictive. We typically allow editors -- even annoying editors who appear to be working their way towards a block -- wide latitude in what they post on their own user/user talk pages. I'm sure you're understandably irritated with that editor's contributions. But I hope you can find the dermal fortitude to let their small outburst roll off of you. Ajpolino (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I was irritated. Taken in isolation, that comment seems pretty innocuous, but it's part of a pattern I had just discovered. I had just reverted a number of disruptive climate change denial deletions. Now that I know you're watching them, I'll back off and let you act the next time they pull that kind of crap. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Trump
Well, so much for closing/hatting or sub-sectioning anything. One just keeps getting reverted. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pointless tinkering around the edges gets reverted. Maybe try to formulate some reasoned content proposals or evaluations and share those. You'll have less edits but add more value. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Val, you've my consent to close/hat or sub-section the discussion-in-question, at Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
My apologies Val. I didn't mean to influence you in anyway. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, sorry about all this happening to you after I encouraged you to hat the section. Also, there was no canvassing here, just a comment about what happened in a situation I knew about. I'll add a comment at the end of the old section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean, you hardly needed permission from GoodDay to re-hat that section if you felt it was appropriate. It's a matter of semantics whether you call it canvassing. The whole thing is needless tinkering and obscuring various comments on an open issue. As to whether any of this should still be an open issue at this point, that's more a behavioral issue than a content issue. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
"Human energy field" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Human energy field and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 16#Human energy field until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
"Option 3"
Are you withdrawing your option from the RfC. Did you not intend for it to be considered, in which case I erred in adding it? It's common practice to add alternatives to nascent RfC's and I thought yours had already received some support. If you have withdrawn it, why not consider re-adding? SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you're adding it. It should be put at the top of the RFC, with the other two. Makes it easier for folks to find it. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Hunter
Do you really mean to say that you have sources to establish that the box on which the files were discovered was owned and used by Biden? The box has only been touched by the blind repair guy and the FBI that we know of. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing to indicate that the laptop was not owned by Hunter. There are some hypothetical questions related to some of the contents (without knowing which or how much) after he gave up possession, but that doesn't change the fact he owned it and most likely all its contents. Deal with the two issues separately and let's stop discussing whether it was or was not his laptop that was turned over in Delaware. It was. By whom and its contents? That's another matter. Let's stop discussing the first one. It was Hunter Biden's laptop. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was just curious whether you have any RS basis for your belief. I would view it the opposite. Much of the content is his, so let's stop discussing the ownership. But the reason ownership is important is because it's being conflated with the narratives initially presented, falsely, during the 2020 campaign. That and rampant CITOGENESIS are important. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Incidentally, calling it Hunter Biden's laptop to reflect the wording used in many top-tier RS is not the same as stating that the laptop belonged to Biden. The latter has very broad connotations not entailed by calling it the HB laptop. Once the congressional hearings get underway there will be a vast array of sourcing to show us which way the article will go. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, since you object to it being called his laptop, who was the owner(s), if not him? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody currently knows any owner prior to Mac Isaac. But so what? No RS has published any evidence as to its ownership. Why default to an undocumented assertion of fact? SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Nobody currently knows any owner prior to Mac Isaac."??? WTF? That's a completely unsourced speculation on your part. All sources attribute ownership before Mac Isaac to Hunter Biden. It was clearly owned by someone other than him before ownership defaulted to him because it was abandoned at his shop and not reclaimed by the owner, Hunter Biden. To imply that Mac Isaac was always the owner would be unsourced, and to imply that anyone other than Hunter owned it before Mac Isaac would also be unsourced, but since all sources attribute the original ownership to Hunter, why not just go with that? It seems to me that your speculations and objections are what is unsourced and creating a huge and disruptive timesink. Drop the stick and walk away. Better yet, concede and keep your honor intact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- You have RS that report the owners prior to Isaac? Could you post links? I didn't suggest saying anything about the prior ownership, quite the opposite. I have not seen any source state that the "original owner" was Hunter Biden. Could you provide some? You seem to be very aroused about this. I have not been particularly active on the article page. I did not renew the discussion. Maybe you could check the history there and at AN, ANI, BLPN, etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ummmm....let's back up, because I get the feeling I'm staring into a bottomless void of "vacuous crap" (per Tim Minchin). Where do you think we got the title "Hunter Biden laptop controversy? Where do you think everyone, including all RS, got the idea of "Hunter Biden laptop"? Who was it who allegedly delivered the laptop to Mac Isaac? Even if that were not Hunter, everything on that laptop proves it had once been Hunter's laptop. It documents in graphic and tragic detail a period of his miserable life, and there is nothing to indicate it ever belonged to anyone else. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds like the (false) inference that some editors have made on various article talk pages that because some of the files have been authenticated, therefore they were originally written on the device on which they were discovered. Calling it the HB Laptop is fine, because that does not say that he owned it and wrote all of the files found on it. Saying that he owned it is not verified by any expert and is used in a very small proportion of sources, without any explanation of the basis for that. Just to be clear -- and I think you've already read this in various places -- the alternative origins of the files Isaac claims to have copied from this device include the possibility that some unknown person hacked them from an HB device and then copied them onto the Mac Isaac device alongside other files that person forged for the purpose. The device is unimportant except to the extent that to state that it was posessed only by HB and never in anyone else's posession frames the narrative in such a way as to lead our readers to think that all the files are genuine. And that is the significance of the issue. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ummmm....let's back up, because I get the feeling I'm staring into a bottomless void of "vacuous crap" (per Tim Minchin). Where do you think we got the title "Hunter Biden laptop controversy? Where do you think everyone, including all RS, got the idea of "Hunter Biden laptop"? Who was it who allegedly delivered the laptop to Mac Isaac? Even if that were not Hunter, everything on that laptop proves it had once been Hunter's laptop. It documents in graphic and tragic detail a period of his miserable life, and there is nothing to indicate it ever belonged to anyone else. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- You have RS that report the owners prior to Isaac? Could you post links? I didn't suggest saying anything about the prior ownership, quite the opposite. I have not seen any source state that the "original owner" was Hunter Biden. Could you provide some? You seem to be very aroused about this. I have not been particularly active on the article page. I did not renew the discussion. Maybe you could check the history there and at AN, ANI, BLPN, etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Nobody currently knows any owner prior to Mac Isaac."??? WTF? That's a completely unsourced speculation on your part. All sources attribute ownership before Mac Isaac to Hunter Biden. It was clearly owned by someone other than him before ownership defaulted to him because it was abandoned at his shop and not reclaimed by the owner, Hunter Biden. To imply that Mac Isaac was always the owner would be unsourced, and to imply that anyone other than Hunter owned it before Mac Isaac would also be unsourced, but since all sources attribute the original ownership to Hunter, why not just go with that? It seems to me that your speculations and objections are what is unsourced and creating a huge and disruptive timesink. Drop the stick and walk away. Better yet, concede and keep your honor intact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody currently knows any owner prior to Mac Isaac. But so what? No RS has published any evidence as to its ownership. Why default to an undocumented assertion of fact? SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, since you object to it being called his laptop, who was the owner(s), if not him? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That is not the consensus of RS. Also, whether or not some files on the laptop were not placed there by him does not invalidate the point it was his laptop. That just means its contents may have been corrupted. Such alternative views may exist on some RS, and, if so, we should also mention those views. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy Seventeenth First Edit Day!
|
Hey, Valjean. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
Happy First Edit Day!
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Valjean! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |  |
Bad food?
No, not this year. I don't want to argue about horrid foods this time. Instead, I wanted to list the 4 food related places I miss most from California.
- Pizza Orgasimca [11] One of the closed bay areas locations is still my all time favorite pizza place. The pie made with refried beans as a base layer won me over.
- Plutos. The garlic fries aren't just fries with garlic powder. They are chucks of garlic. The bread was also a game changer for me. I'm sad to see they appear to be closing down [12]
- Alice's Restaurant. I'm not sure if you can get anything you want but I want their burger.
- Finally, something healthily for the strawberry lovers, Blue House Farm[13]. I think I ate nothing but strawberries for two days after a visit.
Merry Christmas and an argumentative New Year! Springee (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- LOL! Springee, is this related to your comment on your talk page? (Valjean, I gave it a shot and I appreciate the shout out. Don't eat any fermenting meat this weekend! Springee (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)) I don't recall what that was about. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior
Your revert to my edit on David Duke's page, despite there being overwhelming consensus on Wikipedia that the content you reverted to is not appropriate, is very troubling. I have been threatened with a ban for such behavior, yet you act with impunity. You are moving the goal posts. I was specifically told to go to "biographies of living persons" to establish consensus on this issue. I did so, and the consensus was 100% unanimously opposed to the position you are taking. I am addressing the issue of the statement "convicted felon" in an opening sentence, not just on Duke's page, but on Wikipedia generally. I'm not going to fight tooth and nail against disruptive editors on every single page that includes this language. The topic has been discussed multiple times at "biographies of living persons", as I have linked elsewhere. There exists an overwhelming, practically unanimous consensus on this issue, yet you revert my edit without a second thought because you personally don't like it. That's not appropriate, and any other editor without your history and resume would be either warned about this disruptive behavior or outright threatened with a ban. Follow the advice that you yourself have given me - if you don't like an edit, join the discussion on the relevant talk pages and advocate for your position while explaining why the established consensus is wrong. If reverting an edit that reflects consensus to a previous version that does *not* reflect consensus isn't an example of disruptive editing practices, what is?
Please explain yourself, and refrain from being disruptive until you have thoroughly explained your position on the issue, discussed why you think you're right and everyone else is wrong, and convinced others to adopt your view as the consensus view. Otherwise I'll have to figure out who your "higher ups" are, so to speak, and bring your bad faith and disruptive actions to their attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomathes2357 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wow! Let's see... I made ONE edit to restore the status quo version, in harmony with the admin you were edit warring against.
- I had already observed that you had no consensus on THAT talk page, but instead were arguing against two admins who were warning you.
- Now you accuse me of acting in bad faith and being disruptive? This looks like part of your series of personal attacks on several respected editors. Stop it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Let it be noted that I have not commented on the issue of whether "convicted felon" should be in the first sentence. I do think it should be in the lead and have no firm opinion on the exact location. I will follow consensus when it is established for the David Duke article. I know we treat people differently, and in some cases, it is proper to mention "convicted felon" in the first sentence. That's why one editor doesn't get to decide the issue, especially by edit warring, abuse of other editors, and battlefield behavior.
- When I discovered the edit warring at David Duke, I saw an edit warrior furiously engaged in fighting against administrators and hurling abuse at them, so I restored the longstanding status quo version in the hope that the issue would be settled through further discussion. Alas, Philomathes2357 continued their edit war and reverted me. When encouraged to self-revert by other editors they refused, all because they felt they were right, and THAT is the crux of the issue here.
- Edit warring is wrong, even when the editor might be right about all the issues involved. Philomathes may be right about the placement of the "convicted felon" language. They may also be right about some consensus at BLP/N or other dramaboard that can apply at the David Duke article. They may be right about every single atom in the universe, but that would not justify their edit warring, hence my SINGLE revert back to the longstanding status quo version. Nothing justifies edit warring. When an editor is so self-righteous that they feel their edit warring is justified and their hurling of abuse, accusations of bad faith, and personal attacks is okay because "they are right", we've got a problem. We don't need battlefield behavior here. Pinging the involved admins: Doug Weller, Cullen328 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
Note
With regard to this edit, the IP was referring not to Max Blumenthal, but rather to his father Sidney Blumenthal. Despite being related, the two Blumenthals have very different political views on Russia (and presumably much else). Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- OMG! I had Max on my mind and screwed that one up. Thanks for the correction. Much appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
HB
Howdy. Wouldn't it be clearer, just to state that you support option three? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's the one in bold, so it's the one to count. I don't recall correctly, but I may have stricken because deleting something that has been commented on is not allowed. Is it creating confusion currently? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy new era
- Ahh! Thanks so much. It is a privilege to edit alongside you here. Your influence is positive, and your knowledge and experience are very much appreciated. Have a very Happy New Year! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Special
The source is Our Barbara. I know how to reference items but don't you know how to do it? Infactinteresting (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I went to bed. Someone needed to source it. That's what the cn tag is for. --'Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Valjean!
Valjean,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Twitter files TOC test
| Preliminary test |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Original tweets: (Description added)
David Zweig
Original tweets:
David Zweig
|
Yes! Thank you. This is much better than using EL. Twitter is hard to navigate for the occassional user and this page and in this format is the best way for users to find and read the full threads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.251.125.121 (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here is my table that was then installed in the article: User:Valjean/Twitter Files
Removing talk page comments you don't like
While I agree that this is a poor edit [15] I don't actually think there are grounds to remove it. Do you know something which I do not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- It literally means nonsense and/or is a personal attack. We usually delete such things on sight. By restoring it you are defending it. Do you approve of such a personal attack? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I routinely remove such drivel from talk pages with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- How is "derp" covered by WP:NOTAFORUM? Its not civil but it is 100% on topic. Would you remove the equivalent comments "stupid," "meaningless," "foolish," or "not relevant"? Also note that "drivel" is certainly not civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- If it was something we usually did this conversation would not be happening. I've never actually seen such a thing from an established editor deleted on sight. Even if taken as a pejorative its a comment on the comment not the commenter, it might not be civil but its absolutely not a personal attack. Per the great google: "Derp - used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I routinely remove such drivel from talk pages with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Thank you for defending me against sock puppetry accusations Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:TalkAbuse
Wikipedia:TalkAbuse, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:TalkAbuse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:TalkAbuse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
BLP
Look here, look at the comment Herostratus makes to you near the beginning, and read it. Carefully. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with Bundy and is about an entirely different type of content. Regardless, even if you are 100% right, edit warring will get you blocked and indefinitely banned. Stop it and only discuss on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you did not insist on violating the letter of BLP and put me in a position to correct you, there would be no "edit war". Read Herostratus's comment again. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Philomathes2357: The statements you're removing are sourced to two very reliable sources. They're also statements that don't rise to the level of being a BLP concern. Regardless, consensus is what runs Wikipedia, and so far there is not a consensus for removal of that statement. If it were as serious a BLP concern as you're claiming, there would be more support for your removal. But as the passage is sourced (not unsourced or "poorly sourced" as BLP describes) your edits do not meet the requirements to be exempt from 3RR. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Philomathes2357, I read it and it's an entirely different situation. Regardless, edit warring is not justified in this situation. This is not a clear BLP violation, therefore you should act collaboratively and discuss, per BLP. Stop posting here and stop discussing this on people's talk pages. Concentrate on the edit-warring noticeboard thread. No one can force you to edit war. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your note. I am well aware of the situation but am undecided about the best course of action in the short term. These things often play out on a fairly predictable time line, and I see that another administrator is also paying close attention. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Interesting news....McGonigal
Interesting news: Weiser, Benjamin (2023-01-23). "Former Top F.B.I. Official in New York Charged in Money Laundering". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-01-23. Andre🚐 17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is a rare thing for the FBI. Here's an earlier article about him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- McGonigal was involved in some of the FISA stuff about Page (plus Crossfire Hurricane in general), and Deripaska also employed Christopher Steele. The whole thing is so dirty. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- in what way was he
involved in some of the FISA stuff about Page (plus Crossfire Hurricane in general)
? soibangla (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)- He's the former head of Counterintelligence at the New York City FBI office. Before that he led the investigation into the Wikileaks / Manning thing, got Sandy Berger for mishandling classified documents (lol @ that), was chief of the FBI cybercrimes division in DC during the DNC email hack, and was one of the first to know that Papadopoulos was boasting that the Russians had dirt on Hillary (which launched Crossfire Hurricane). Re: Page, in one of the Senate data dumps FBI texts revealed McGonigal he was worried that the Page FISA stuff would leak after a briefing to the House Intel Committee on March 16, 2017. It then leaked to WaPo who released a story about it April 11, 2017. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, what was dirty about it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- A sanctioned Russian oligarch was paying a former FBI executive to help get his sanctions removed. If we're allowed to link to Fox here, some details are in there. If you don't want to read Fox, here at least is a quote from the article.
- "The FBI is committed to the enforcement of economic sanctions designed to protect the United States and our allies, especially against hostile activities of a foreign government and its actors," FBI Assistant Director in Charge Michael J. Driscoll said. "Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska perform global malign influence on behalf of the Kremlin and are associated with acts of bribery, extortion, and violence."
- "After sanctions are imposed, they must be enforced equally against all U.S. citizens in order to be successful," Driscoll added. "There are no exceptions for anyone, including a former FBI official like Mr. McGonigal. Supporting a designated threat to the United States and our allies is a crime the FBI will continue to pursue aggressively." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Or here from USA Today which is safe for Wikipedia editors to read. Apparently he was receiving payments while still employed by the FBI. To me that's dirty. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- in what way was he
Yes, during the Trump campaign, Giuliani bragged about getting info from the New York FBI field office, and Trump knew it and used it. The NY FBI did not like Hillary and apparently tried to damage her campaign by aiding Trump. I remember that I was very alarmed at the time.
Many RS covered this:[16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
Rudy then tried to deny it.
This was tied to the "her emails" thing and should be mentioned at Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton email controversy.
He clearly had access there through one or more agents he could talk to. I'm not sure it involved McGonigal. The timing for when he started in New York is crucial.
It was also there that they let Steele's first reports languish for two months. There was some sort of corruption at that office. It's as if all forms of law enforcement in New York is corrupt. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Long before the dossier, Steele, Bruce Ohr, and possibly Glen Simpson and Nellie Ohr at Fusion GPS were involved with the FBI in its attempts to flip Deripaska.[23][24] Fusion GPS kept Deripaska as a client, ostensibly to help him get a visa, a convenient way to get close and stay close to him.
Unreliable sources try to conflate that into a connection with the Trump Tower meeting, and we have fringe editors here who slyly push that baseless conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Correct. The idea of a corrupt connection with the Page FISA etc. is deep twitter/Fox/My Pillow level conspiracy stuff. Connection is not the same as corrupt connection. In fact it's the essence of conspiracy theories that they start from thin grist and whip it into a nonsensical intoxicating gruel. I think we can rest assured that if there were any such connection, Barr's multi-million dollar Durham "investigation" fiasco would have uncovered it. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- But yeah, this sort of material is what I had in mind. I remember reading about the shenanigans with the NY FBI and the leaks and Giuliani. So it looks like they are rooting out some of the dirty agents in the FBI - the ones who hated Hillary and were helping Rudy. The Page/FISA thing is a fringe red herring. Andre🚐 21:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Andre, the timing for him working in the New York FBI field office is mentioned here:
Before his retirement in 2018, McGonigal led the WikiLeaks investigation into Chelsea Manning, busted Bill Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger for removing classified material from a National Archives reading room, and led the search for a Chinese mole inside the CIA. In 2016, when reports surfaced that Russia had hacked the email system of the Democratic National Committee, McGonigal was serving as chief of the cybercrimes section at FBI headquarters in Washington. In that capacity, he was one of the first officials to learn that a Trump campaign official had bragged that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton, sparking the investigation known as Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Later that year, FBI Director James Comey promoted McGonigal to oversee counterintelligence operations in New York.[25]
User:Mr Ernie, is there anything there that looks improper or dirty? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for all this research, I knew you'd have the goods, Valjean. I think I'm still connecting a few dots that are speculative in assuming that McGonigal was part of or identical to the dirty NY FBI field agents from the Giuliani story. But it would be consistent with the other information we had about Deripaska and Manafort and Kilimnik. Andre🚐 21:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that was exactly my point about timing. I think he arrived too late in New York to be one of the dirty agents helping Trump. Then again, this is the beginning of October. Were there any other signs he sided with Trump or against Hillary as a mole for Russia? I don't see it. He seems to have generally been doing his job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- His alleged ties to the sanctioned Russian oligarch are dirty/corrupt, ie what he has been arrested for. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Marcy has some interesting observations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- She always does. Andre🚐 19:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I only check her occasionally, but sometimes she points to good facts that are found in the RS we can cite. The same for Jerry Dunleavy (Washington Examiner) and some journalists at The Washington Times. They all are serious investigators who discover good stuff at times, but because they publish at unreliable sources, we can't cite them. As Jimmy Wales said: "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals... then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."[26] If they want to get cited here, they should publish at RS. The same applies to Greenwald and others who have taken to Substack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Marcy Wheeler was previously with The Intercept. I consider her in a group of independent journalists like Seth Abramson and Draft:Scott Stedman (plug: working on this draft) that often get useful information before the mainstream outlets cover it. In Abramson's case sometimes years before. Unlike Louise Mensch or Greenwald, Wheeler has generally been solid and not a fringe nutjob even though she's been occasionally misled by her sources. But I wouldn't cite them in an article. Andre🚐 20:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I only check her occasionally, but sometimes she points to good facts that are found in the RS we can cite. The same for Jerry Dunleavy (Washington Examiner) and some journalists at The Washington Times. They all are serious investigators who discover good stuff at times, but because they publish at unreliable sources, we can't cite them. As Jimmy Wales said: "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals... then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."[26] If they want to get cited here, they should publish at RS. The same applies to Greenwald and others who have taken to Substack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Whatever else happens today ...
In one respect[27] you will leave the world in a better place than it started. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even the small things count. BTW, although I'm American, I have lived in six countries and speak two languages everyday. That language-confused state has messed up my once excellent English grammar and punctuation. IOW, I don't always get it right. Punctuation varies a lot from one language to another. If you see an error of mine, please let me know. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Great RS essay!
I've only just gotten to the end of the section on "Sources: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and have gotten so much out of it. Thank you for putting together this piece of research. 
Like! Platonk (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Platonk. Thank you. I assume you're referring to this essay. A couple others that are even better are these:
- Valjean (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Trump collusion was very real
For this section.
(after the Mueller Report) Subsequently, the Republican-led U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report finding that interactions with Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik during the 2016 election by Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort posed a "grave counterintelligence threat".[1]
Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, reacted to the report by writing an article titled "Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?" He described how "the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort."[2]
Copied here from elsewhere:
- What you wrote is false and a common misunderstanding perpetuated by Russian media, Fox News, right-wing media, and Trump. ("The Mueller investigation found there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia thereby refuting much of her reporting.")
- Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination", but found myriad forms of collusion. This collusion is usually described with various other words. In fact, Trump and his campaign invited, welcomed, defended, cooperated with, aided, abetted, and facilitated the proven Russian interference in the election designed to put him in power. He also revealed classified information to the Russians, sometimes exposing friendly sources and endangering their lives. Even Giuliani admitted the campaign colluded with the Russians. Trump also obstructed the investigations and destroyed and withheld evidence. He has a habit of ripping up official documents, which is illegal. He even flushed them. His campaign had myriad illicit and secret contacts with literal Russian secret agents.
- More information, with the RS which document it, is found here:
- The earliest evidence of collusion I have found was this tweet from an influential Russian he met at the 2013 Miss Universe contest. Alferova's Jan 22, 2014 tweet is significant evidence that he had been talking with Russians about his plans before the American public knew of them: "Apparently she knew Trump was going to run for president a year and a half before he made his formal announcement."[28][29] This has been cited as evidence of collusion. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Tucker, Eric; Jalonick, Mary Clare (August 18, 2021). "Trump campaign's Russia contacts 'grave' threat, Senate says". Associated Press. Retrieved November 11, 2021.
- ^ McFaul, Michael (August 22, 2020). "Michael McFaul Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?". NBC News. Retrieved November 11, 2021.
Evaluating sources in the AP2, Trumpian, post-truth era
Editors should understand how to evaluate sources, and here are some red flags to watch for. Any source that sows doubt about the following proven facts is not a RS:
- Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a "sweeping and systematic" fashion.
- Their goals were to put Donald Trump in power by harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton and increasing political and social discord in the United States.
- Trump and his campaign had myriad, illicit, secret links with Russians which they kept hidden and lied about.
- Those links were first discovered in 2015 when secretive meetings and interactions all over Europe between Trump associates and known or suspected Russian agents were recorded in routine surveillance of those persons and spies. Allied intelligence agencies were alarmed and reported those contacts to American intelligence.
- Trump and his campaign welcomed, facilitated, aided and abetted, and cooperated with the Russian interference in myriad ways.
- The Steele dossier had no role in triggering the overall Russian interference investigation.
- Trump did not win the 2020 election.
- It was not stolen from him by Biden.
- Trump attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 United States presidential election.
- The 2020 United States presidential election was the most secure in American history, and its results were not affected by any widespread voter fraud.
- Trump's efforts were actually an attempt to steal the election from its rightful winner. Those efforts have rightly been described as an attempted coup/self-coup and insurrection.
- Republicans have largely defended Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud.
- Climate change is caused by humans and is serious.
- Vaccines are safe.
- Donald Trump is rarely truthful in any sense. He uses misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and chaos as his political modus operandi, even when it mostly affects and literally kills (COVID-19 and anti-vaccine actions) his own supporters.
Let me nail these facts firmly on the front door of Wikipedia:
- There are such things as verifiable, reality-based, facts.
- Trump's "alternative facts" are not reality-based facts; they are falsehoods.[1]
- The mainstream media are not fake news; they are working hard to report the news accurately and don't allow spin to get in the way of the facts. When they make a mistake, they correct their errors.
- The "news" sources favored by Trump are invariably unreliable, inaccurately spin and distort the facts, and some are worthy of being called fake news because they only spout what's favorable to Trump, even though it's often false. He likes them because the truth hurts, and it interferes with his agenda.
- When Trump says "fake news", he doesn't mean "news that is untrue";[2] he means news which is negative and unfavorable to himself, even though it's true.[3][4]
No editor here should doubt any of the facts mentioned above. Period. Only "fringe editors"[5] doubt them. In these post-truth[6][7] Trumpian[8] political times, fringe editors often have a strong Trump bias and point of view because they adopt Trump's open animosity toward RS[9][10][11][12][13] and believe his untruths and the fake news stories that are circulated in his support and attack those he does not like. They live in a closed information bubble and are often ignorant of the facts, thus disqualifying them from editing on politically sensitive topics. AP2 topic bans are usually the best way to deal with them until they show a positive learning curve that demonstrates they are better informed and can vet sources accurately.
Facts are facts, lies are lies, and opinions are not facts. Sources that undermine those facts are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. All editors should know which sources do that and that those sources are often defended by fringe editors here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and The New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts'. Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017.
- ^ Lind, Dara (May 9, 2018). "Trump finally admits that "fake news" just means news he doesn't like". Vox. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
- ^ Gendreau, Henri (February 25, 2017). "The internet made 'fake news' a thing—then made it nothing". Wired. Retrieved May 9, 2018.
- ^ Cillizza, Chris (May 9, 2018). "Donald Trump just accidentally revealed something very important about his 'fake news' attacks". CNN. Retrieved May 10, 2018.
- ^ Fringe editors: I define them as editors who lack the competence to vet sources, and who are misinformed by, and use unreliable sources. See Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here for more on this.
Here's why I call them "fringe":
- More people voted for Clinton, with Trump receiving 46.7 percent of the vote in the 2016 election. Trump voters were a clear minority, but "minority" doesn't necessarily equal "fringe". Things have changed since then.
- That minority has grown even smaller, as many Trump voters have regretted their vote and are no longer supporters.
- What's left is current Trump supporters, a much smaller group who are indeed fringe, largely because of their blind allegiance to a man divorced from truth and reliable sources. If it weren't for the fact that Trump is actually sitting in the WH, they would be ignored as a radical group of people divorced from reality, just like Trump.
- Like Trump, they get their "news" from fringe, very unreliable, sources. Keep in mind that before Trump was elected, only 3% got their "news" from Breitbart (2014), yet Trump gets his "news" from them, InfoWars, and Fox & Friends, and he brought Bannon into the WH. Trump is a very fringe president.
- Here we have a tiny subset of editors who try to include views from unreliable sources, and even try to use those sources as references. They lack the competence to vet sources, which seriously impacts their editing and discussions here. That is all very fringe by Wikipedia's standards.
- ^ Papazoglou, Alexis. "The post-truth era of Trump is just what Nietzsche predicted". The Conversation. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
- ^ Alloa, Emmanuel (August 28, 2017). "Post-Truth or: Why Nietzsche is not Responsible for Donald Trump". The Philosophical Salon. Retrieved July 14, 2022.
- ^ "Trumpian". Dictionary.com. February 1, 2018. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
- ^ Pak, Nataly; Seyler, Matt (July 19, 2018). "Trump derides news media as 'enemy of the people' over Putin summit coverage". ABC News. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
- ^ Atkins, Larry (February 27, 2017). "Facts still matter in the age of Trump and fake news". The Hill. Retrieved March 9, 2017.
- ^ Felsenthal, Julia (March 3, 2017). "How the Women of the White House Press Corps Are Navigating "Fake News" and "Alternative Facts"". Vogue. Retrieved March 3, 2017.
- ^ Massie, Chris (February 7, 2017). "WH official: We'll say 'fake news' until media realizes attitude of attacking the President is wrong". CNN. Retrieved March 27, 2017.
- ^ Page, Clarence (February 7, 2017). "Trump's obsession with (his own) 'fake news'". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
A caution issued elsewhere
Mr Ernie, please don't advocate for the "Trump is the victim of a hoax" idea in any way, shape, or form, whether you tie it to the dossier or other aspects of Trump/Russia relations. The dossier is not a "hoax", and Trump is not the victim of a hoax or witch hunt. The suspicions and investigations of Trump and his campaign are all inspired by his own dubious activities.
You wrote: "The "collusion" stuff has always been a hoax grounded firmly in the Steele Dossier." The "hoax" aspect of that comment of yours was improper at Wikipedia and false everywhere.
Here at Wikipedia, advocacy of fringe theories is forbidden activity. It's tendentious and unwikipedian. Keep that in mind. This response to soibangla, which you edit warred over, is a case in point:
Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. While the former can be somewhat fun for people who like to argue, you'll eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it. So go with the latter. I don't choose which media I consume based on what Wikipedia says, but by what interests me personally. (18:59, 3 November 2021)
Let's unpack all the meaning packed in that fateful quote, because you are indeed a reader "who thinks Wikipedia is biased".
- "Readers who think Wikipedia is biased" are those who do not agree with RS.
- You even recognize that to do what you want would be to "go against Wikipedia policies".
- You then advise to not "Argue with the editors on the talk page" and instead "go with the latter" ( "just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these [unreliable] article subjects") as if the latter are legitimate options. They are not.
That was horribly unwikipedian thinking. Why deliberately go with unreliable sources?
Why not agree with RS so there would be no need to argue with other editors? Instead, you violate your own advice all the time and argue with mainstream editors who get their views from the RS you don't like,
- You then admit that if you follow your own preference, you'd "eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it."
So you admit that your preferences are blockable offenses.
It appears that "what interests [you] personally" is what you read on unreliable sources. That's the only way I can interpret what you wrote when compared with your frequent pushing of views found in unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. (At least you're consistent and follow your own beliefs.)
Instead of "ignoring" our articles, you should read them and their sources to learn what is factual. Let your mind be guided by evidence, not by "what interests [you] personally".
After a long edit war with several other editors over that content, you restored it with an alteration:
Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. Continuing to just complain about reliable sources and article bias isn't productive. (16:52, 4 November 2021)
I guess you realized what part wasn't wise to utter out loud here, but you had already expressed your real disdain for our articles, for RS, and how you favor using unreliable sources. That cat is out of the bag, and we all know it. Please(!!) alter your beliefs, and, even if you don't, don't allow them to affect your discussions and editing, because it's quite evident when you are allowing that to happen. You can still do good work here if you're careful and avoid the political articles.
IIRC, you have been warned several times by several admins that an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban hangs over your head if you continue to do as you are doing now. Some of your comments (like the ones above) violate our Advocacy and Fringe policies, so, if you want to avoid a topic ban or stay here at all, please follow my advice. -- Valjean (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia, AfDs and GNG
When approaching an AfD, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only ONE question: "Does this pass our General notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the ONLY relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, can it be rescued by finding more RS? Then advocate for that before !voting Delete. All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE.
Fixing and improving, not deleting, is how we roll here, and bogus AfDs violate our "purpose" here, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," as long as it's found in RS. Editors who create AfDs for articles that pass GNG should be trouted for undermining the very reason Wikipedia was created. If they do it repeatedly, they should be topic banned from creating AfDs.
Editors who create articles often deal with bogus AfDs from editors who are ignoring/resisting our "purpose" here. They are forgetting that "not censored" is also aimed at what they are doing.
We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated. AfDs are often attacks against GNG: Articles that clearly pass GNG are nominated for deletion, and the reason often turns out to be a hodgepodge of dubious arguments that collectively violate our "purpose" and are basically I don't like it. While no editor can be required to create an article or to make an edit, they certainly should be sanctioned if they get in the way of the creation of an article that passes GNG. This kind of extreme (actually very common!) deletionism is wrong. We should aid the creation of articles and content. We're here to build, not destroy.
Our job (purpose here) is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"[1][2] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.
Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of any controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"[1] and censorship seriously undermines that goal.
Because Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, another objection to deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.[3] We try to build content, not break it down. Imperfect content is not removed, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.
Wikipedia isn't just another encyclopedia. It aims to be exhaustive in an unlimited sense. It should be unlike all others in scope and size. It is the Internet Archive of knowledge. If a piece of knowledge is notable enough (mention in multiple RS), an article should be created for it, or (if only mentioned in one or two RS) it should at least be mentioned in an existing article or list. We need to be super-inclusive. I have an essay which deals with how NPOV deals with biased sources, and it touches on these subjects: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Battles, Matthew (July 12, 2012), Wikipedia and the sum of human knowledge, metaLAB (at) Harvard, retrieved October 22, 2015
- ^ Jerney, John (October 22, 2002), "The Wikipedia: The encyclopedia for the rest of us", The Daily Yomiuri, retrieved October 22, 2015
Quote: "In particular, the goal of the Wikipedia is to produce the best encyclopedia encapsulating the sum total of human knowledge.... [It] offers the possibility of everything being written into history, with all of mankind sharing knowledge and information in a way that enables everyone to profit from it." — Wikipedia:Testimonials
- ^ Wales, Jimmy (August 2006), The birth of Wikipedia, TED Talks, retrieved December 5, 2015
User:Valjean/Essay/WikiPurpose
Fringe beliefs
Copied from User talk:Stiabhna#Fringe beliefs.
I'm trying to save you so you can end up a good editor. Read what follows with that in mind.
Like I wrote above, you are allowed to believe whatever you want, but openly advocating things that are pushed by unreliable sources and are contrary to what reliable sources say places you right in the middle of a "fringe editor" target. On your user page you have written your political beliefs:
- Proud anti-vaxxer
- Proud supporter of current President of the United States Donald Trump
- The 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol was a coup perpetrated by Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrat Party
You should not be proud that you believe in that trifecta of misinformation. You need to catch up with the facts, so please read the following articles and their sources. :
- Public health is not a private matter. Your actions can literally kill other people.
Read: Vaccine hesitancy, Misinformation related to vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States, Measles resurgence in the United States - Trump is a former president, so never again call him the "current" president. That will likely get you blocked for forbidden advocacy of fringe beliefs. Trump uses both the "Big Lie" and "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda techniques.
Read: Big lie# Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Trumpism, Firehose of falsehood[1][2][3][4][5][6] - There is no evidence that Pelosi or the left-wing had anything to do with that coup attempt. Trump's supporters marched from his meeting at the White House to the Capitol and did what they did. Trump and his friends planned and inspired what happened that day. Even McConnell said it was all Trump's fault.
Read: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol.
I hope you will bring your beliefs into line with the facts. Facts matter, and it's important to keep your beliefs up-to-date and always follow the evidence:
- "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford
- "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell
Our articles are based on reliable sources, so you can generally trust them to be factual. Please believe them. -- Valjean (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Paul, Christopher; Matthews, Miriam (January 1, 2016). "The Russian 'Firehose of Falsehood' Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It". RAND Corporation. doi:10.7249/PE198. JSTOR resrep02439.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Brian Stelter (November 30, 2020). "'Firehose of falsehood:' How Trump is trying to confuse the public about the election outcome". CNN.
- ^ Maza, Carlos (August 31, 2018). "Why obvious lies make great propaganda". Vox.
- ^ Zappone, Chris (October 12, 2016). "Donald Trump campaign's 'firehose of falsehoods' has parallels with Russian propaganda". The Sydney Morning Herald.
- ^ Harford, Tim (May 6, 2021). "What magic teaches us about misinformation". Financial Times.
- ^ Clifton, Denise (August 3, 2017). "Trump's nonstop lies may be a far darker problem than many realize". Mother Jones.
Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President
Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Have you seen this yet? Jeff Gerth and CJR's Russia problem
I haven’t had a chance to read this review yet from CJR but I am planning to tomorrow. Have you seen it yet? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll check it out. Feel free to post the interesting content you find right here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Kyle Pope is a serious journalist, and he's covered these topics before:
- 2017 Trump is at war with the press — and it’s time for the press to stop helping him. POPE, WAPO. "Kyle Pope is editor and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review. This is an edited version of testimony Pope delivered July 24 at a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on threats to the pess." POPE, WAPO
- 2020 What the polls show, and the press missed, again, POPE, CJR
- 2020 Drawing All the Wrong Lessons From Media’s Election 2020 Failures, JULIE HOLLAR, FAIR
- 2019. Fake news? Mueller investigation supports reporting on Trump, Russia probe. David Bauder The Associated Press. "The media looks a lot stronger today than it did before the release of this report," Kyle Pope, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, said Friday.
- 2017 BuzzFeed was right to publish Trump-Russia files Vanessa M. Gezari, CJR
- 2017 We defend BuzzFeed's decision to publish... POPE Tweet
- In an interview with Brian Stelter of CNN, Pope stated that after the election of President Donald Trump, the news media needs to rethink how it covers the news in order to "retake the agenda from this man who so hungers for attention, and how do we tell stories in a way that reflects the scale and sweep of the moment we're in?"[1]
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I see that it's all written by Jeff Gerth. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
He starts off on the wrong foot, and that doesn't bode well: "inquiry into whether Donald Trump was colluding with Russia". Mueller made clear he was interested in "conspiracy" and "coordination", not "collusion". This is carelessness. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's a big chew. I wish he'd footnoted it. It'll take me longer to analyze it than it took him to write it. soibangla (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- He kind of buries the lead right in part 1 -
By 2016, as Trump’s political viability grew and he voiced admiration for Russia’s “strong leader,” Clinton and her campaign would secretly sponsor and publicly promote an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that there was a secret alliance between Trump and Russia
(emphasis mine - btw where's our Wikipedia article on that conspiracy theory?). We all well know how the Clinton campaign would also go on to indirectly fund a misinformation dossier put together by a foreign ex-spy and some shady Russian players. It's also impressive how impactful Simpson and his contacts were. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Since this is my talk page, and NOTFORUM does not apply, I'll comment on that quote. Yes, they had good reason (they had just been hacked by Russia!) to believe Steele's reporting that stated there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". That was a national security threat that was rightly reported to the FBI for investigation. (Trump kept secret and lied about his contacts with Russia and knowledge of their offers of support.) Good for Steele, who did the right thing by reporting to the FBI. The "conspiracy" aspect was never proven, but the "cooperation" was proven to have occurred in many ways. One does not have to believe in a conspiracy when the claimed actions did occur, as the actions are the most important part. The GOP and Trump are essentially saying that robbers should be acquitted of a proven robbery because we can't prove the robbers secretly planned the robbery. That thinking boggles the mind. The robbery was committed. Period. Lock 'em up.
- The Clinton team did push an "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory" about a secret alliance, a theory that proved to be true. The alliance (Trump shared his plans with Russia and they promised to support him) was kept secret from Americans, but its existence was revealed in Jan. 2014 by Trump's personal hostess at the Nov. 2013 Miss Universe contest. (The tweet.) Almost no one noticed the significance of that tweet. Later, the alliance became quite public in many ways, and Trump again reaffirmed his loyalty to Putin a few days ago: Donald Trump Says He Trusts Putin More Than U.S. Intelligence 'Lowlifes'. Once again, he is reassuring Putin that he welcomes more help from Putin in 2024.
- So Steele's sources were right. The Trump team was indeed working to aid the Russians, who had promised to help Trump. That is no longer a conspiracy theory. Danchenko's worth as a source was reaffirmed by the FBI, who then, after Steele, employed Danchenko for nearly four years. He was a phenomenal source for the dossier and the FBI.
Helson testified that Danchenko's reports as a confidential informant were used by the FBI in 25 investigations and 40 intelligence reports during a nearly four-year period from March 2017 to October 2020.... Danchenko, the FBI agent said, was considered 'a model' informant and 'reshaped the way the U.S. even perceives threats.' Helson said that none of his previous informants had ever had as many sub-sources as Danchenko and that others at the FBI have continued to ask in recent months for Danchenko's assistance amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.[2]
- If Steele had never used the word "conspiracy", we would look at all of this in a very different light. We would have focused on Trump's disloyal actions, not on "conspiracy", something that is nearly impossible to prove.
- BTW, the Durham's "investigation" is now being torn apart for its unethical actions. See Russia investigation origins counter-narrative and the new Durham special counsel investigation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It's interesting that the introduction is written by Pope, a strong critic of the dossier. I have used a couple of the links above to bolster that criticism in the Steele dossier article (edit summary: "Pope and CJR's initial support of BuzzFeed's decision and Pope's later reversal"):
BuzzFeed's decision to publish the dossier was immediately criticized by many major media sources, among them The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.[3] Although the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) had originally (January 11, 2017) backed BuzzFeed's publication of the dossier,[3] and editor Kyle Pope had tweeted his support of that decision,[4] he later (November 17, 2021) described it as "a document that was never designed to meet the standards of good journalism", noting that its credibility had collapsed, and concluding that it was the source of "a lot of nonsense and misdirection" in subsequent media coverage and should not have been published at all.[5]
Mr Ernie, as a strong critic of the dossier (kudos for that), I'd be interested in you presenting here the tidbits you find in this CJR coverage. Some of them might be useful in the article, even though we already have a huge amount of criticism in the article. These opinions are still important in light of history. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'll never understand the right-wing obsession with the Clintons. Their hatred of Hillary borders on the pathological and misogynistic. Freud would have a field day with that
ElectraOedipus complex. However when it comes to Trump, conservative conspiracy theorists are the ones who deny reality by insisting that there is a false balance of Trump derangement syndrome. It can both be true that Clinton funded oppo research on Trump and that there was a lot of "there" there to find. Andre🚐 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)- It goes back to the false Clinton body count conspiracy theory, one of the most vicious smear campaigns ever launched, and still strongly pushed and believed by right-wingers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Waldow, Julia (January 27, 2018). "CJR's Kyle Pope on covering Trump differently". CNN.
- ^ Rizzo, Salvador (October 14, 2022). "Durham says Steele dossier source lied. But the FBI long valued him". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2022.
- ^ a b Gezari, Vanessa M (January 11, 2017). "BuzzFeed was right to publish Trump-Russia files". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
- ^ Pope, Kyle (January 11, 2017). "Pope tweets support of CJR decision". Twitter. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
We defend BuzzFeed's decision to publish
- ^ Pope, Kyle (November 17, 2021). "The media's belated rush to judgment on the Trump dossier". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved November 19, 2021.
Some commentary about Jeff Gerth and CJR's Russia problem
- Columbia Journalism Review’s Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point. The magazine's attempted takedown of the media's coverage bolsters Trump's phony narrative.
- David Corn: Gerth "missed the point" and bolstered "Trump's phony narrative...Ultimately Gerth does a disservice by failing to cast Russiagate accurately. Putin's attack succeeded, with help from Trump and his crew. That has always been the big story."[1]
- The Reporter Who Hyped Whitewater Now Backs Trump On 'Russiagate'
- Joe Conason: Gerth's former colleagues are "seething with fury at him...because Gerth has betrayed basic journalistic standards."[2]
- "Its author is Jeff Gerth, a reporter who worked at the Times for three decades. His former colleagues are said to be seething with fury at him. They have ample reason, not out of feelings of personal betrayal, but because Gerth has betrayed basic journalistic standards. Unfortunately, this is not the first time."
- "Gerth's account is fatally flawed by his omission of critical facts about Trump and Russia,..."
- "...Gerth is perpetuating the coverup." "...problems in Gerth's deeply defective work..."
- "Gerth's latest misadventure, providing tilted alibis for Trump, follows a pattern of decades. It should surprise nobody, especially his now-infuriated former colleagues at the Times. Hailed by the right-wing media, he appears to believe that he is in a position to lecture his fellow journalists. They would do better taking instruction elsewhere."
- "Ultimately Gerth does a disservice by failing to cast Russiagate accurately. Putin's attack succeeded, with help from Trump and his crew. That has always been the big story."
- Gerth's "version of Russiagate echoes Trump's distorted narrative and lets the man who assisted an attack on the United States off the hook. Trump may have been the victim of occasionally errant reporting. But he was no victim of a hoax or an off-the-rails media witch hunt. He helped an adversary sabotage an American election."
- Columbia Journalism Review Had a Different Russiagate Story - and Spiked It
- Jonathan Chait: "This is a triumph of spin....In the main, the broad suspicion of the investigation — that Trump's pattern of oddly Russophilic statements might be explained by some hidden partnership — proved to be correct."[3]
- "This is a triumph of spin.... Yes, some of the reporting, as you would expect of a sprawling investigation, was wrong. And some expectations of where the scandal would go from opinion journalists were wrong, too...Still, the investigation produced extensive evidence of misconduct....In the main, the broad suspicion of the investigation — that Trump’s pattern of oddly Russophilic statements might be explained by some hidden partnership — proved to be correct."
- Kyle Pope's pro-Russia history, pro-Trump positions, and backing of The Nation (with its pro-communist history), plus Pope's huge financial COI, is strongly criticized. "But having read Campbell’s two accounts, the theory that Pope published Gerth’s story simply because he cares so much about good and ethical journalism can be ruled out."
- Rachel Maddow: "Jeff Gerth deflects attention from the core components of Russiagate, mirroring Donald Trump's own efforts of the past six years to escape accountability for his profound betrayal of the nation."[4]
- Why 'Russiagate' Skeptics Are Cackling—But Shouldn't Be
- Cathy Young: "In claiming that the Trump-Russia story was nothing more than a sensation-driven media witch hunt, the revisionists downplay and distort a very ugly story."[5]
- "In claiming that the Trump-Russia story was nothing more than a sensation-driven media witch hunt, the revisionists downplay and distort a very ugly story."
- "In a response in Mother Jones, David Corn writes that Gerth consistently “lowballs the Russian attack on the election and Trump’s assistance” by focusing almost exclusively on two elements: the lack of evidence of actual “collusion”—as in, active conspiracy to subvert or steal the election—between Russian agents and the Trump campaign, and the role of the much-ballyhooed, eventually debunked dossier compiled by retired British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. This approach, Corn suggests, ignores or downplays many other forms of Russia-related wrongdoing by Team Trump, including Trump’s repeated attempts to deny and obscure Vladimir Putin’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election."
- "As Corn puts it: 'With this confab, Team Trump signaled to Moscow that it was willing to accept Putin’s covert assistance. It did not report to the FBI or anyone else that the Kremlin was aiming to intervene in the election. This may not have been collusion; it was complicity.'"
- The CJR's critique of 'Russia Russia Russia' coverage is all trees, no forest
- Dan Kennedy: "The notion that Trump was a victim of bad reporting with regard to Russia is just nonsense."[6]
- Baron wrote that "Russia intervened in the election, that the Trump campaign was aware of it, welcomed it and never alerted law enforcement or intelligence agencies to it. And reporting showed that Trump sought to impede the investigation into it."
- "Gerth has shown that the press, and especially the Times, was not as careful as it should have been in reporting on Russia Russia Russia. And yes, details matter. But the notion that Trump was a victim of bad reporting with regard to Russia is just nonsense. In the end, Gerth has produced a report that's all trees, no forest."
- Who Watches the Watchdog? The CJR's Russia Problem
- Duncan Campbell: "As with The Nation in 2017, the CJR is seeing a storm of derisive and critical evaluations of the series by senior American journalists. More assessments are said to be in the pipeline... The Columbia Journalism Review may now have a Russia Problem."[7]
- "On 30 January 2023, the CJR published an immense four-part 23,000-word series on Trump, Russia and the US media. The CJR‘s writers found their magazine praised lavishly by normally rabid outlets. Fox News rejoiced that The New York Times had been “skewered by the liberal media watchdog the Columbia Journalism Review” over Russiagate”. WorldNetDaily called it a “win for Trump”."
- "As with The Nation in 2017, the CJR is seeing a storm of derisive and critical evaluations of the series by senior American journalists. More assessments are said to be in the pipeline. “We’re taking the critiques seriously,” Pope said this week. The Columbia Journalism Review may now have a Russia Problem."
- Marcy Wheeler, a national security blogger (Emptywheel), is a thorough researcher often referred to on Twitter by notable journalists. She's worth reading as she points to RS. Wheeler became a witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump's possible connections to Russia after outing one of her sources to the FBI in 2017.[8][9] Wheeler stated that she had "concrete evidence he was lying to [her]" and that her source was "doing serious harm to innocent people".[9]
From Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Columbia Journalism Review
- In a 2023 4-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review, Jeff Gerth, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, reassessed the role of the press in reporting on Trump's role in the Russian interference.[10] Multiple mainstream sources pushed back against Gerth's assertions, among them David Corn,[1] Joe Conason,[2] Jonathan Chait,[3] Rachel Maddow,[4] Cathy Young,[5] Dan Kennedy,[6] and Duncan Campbell.[7]
References
- ^ a b Corn, David (February 2, 2023). "Columbia Journalism Review's Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point". Mother Jones. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
Gerth "missed the point" and bolstered "Trump's phony narrative...Ultimately Gerth does a disservice by failing to cast Russiagate accurately. Putin's attack succeeded, with help from Trump and his crew. That has always been the big story."
- ^ a b Conason, Joe (February 4, 2023). "The Reporter Who Hyped Whitewater Now Backs Trump On 'Russiagate'". The National Memo. Retrieved February 10, 2023.
His former colleagues are said to be seething with fury at him...because Gerth has betrayed basic journalistic standards....Gerth is perpetuating the coverup....[Trump] helped an adversary sabotage an American election.
- ^ a b Chait, Jonathan (February 9, 2023). "Columbia Journalism Review Had a Different Russiagate Story - and Spiked It". New York. Retrieved February 10, 2023.
This is a triumph of spin.... Yes, some of the reporting, as you would expect of a sprawling investigation, was wrong. And some expectations of where the scandal would go from opinion journalists were wrong, too...Still, the investigation produced extensive evidence of misconduct....In the main, the broad suspicion of the investigation — that Trump's pattern of oddly Russophilic statements might be explained by some hidden partnership — proved to be correct.
- ^ a b Maddow, Rachel (February 3, 2023). "Friday's Mini-Report, 2.3.23". MSNBC. Retrieved February 10, 2023.
I wish I knew why the Columbia Journalism Review published such an unfortunate piece on such an important issue: "Misdirection, an essential tool for magicians, is not usually a component of media criticism. But in a lengthy critique of the coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal published this week by the Columbia Journalism Review, veteran investigative reporter Jeff Gerth deflects attention from the core components of Russiagate, mirroring Donald Trump's own efforts of the past six years to escape accountability for his profound betrayal of the nation.
- ^ a b Young, Cathy (February 9, 2023). "Why 'Russiagate' Skeptics Are Cackling—But Shouldn't Be". The Bulwark. Retrieved February 10, 2023.
As Corn puts it: 'With this confab, Team Trump signaled to Moscow that it was willing to accept Putin's covert assistance. It did not report to the FBI or anyone else that the Kremlin was aiming to intervene in the election. This may not have been collusion; it was complicity.'
- ^ a b Kennedy, Dan (February 9, 2023). "The CJR's critique of 'Russia Russia Russia' coverage is all trees, no forest". Media Nation. Retrieved February 10, 2023.
Gerth has shown that the press, and especially the Times, was not as careful as it should have been in reporting on Russia Russia Russia. And yes, details matter. But the notion that Trump was a victim of bad reporting with regard to Russia is just nonsense. In the end, Gerth has produced a report that's all trees, no forest.
- ^ a b Campbell, Duncan (February 7, 2023). "Who Watches the Watchdog? The CJR's Russia Problem". Byline Times. Retrieved February 10, 2023.
- ^ Sullivan, Margaret (July 8, 2018). "Perspective - A journalist's conscience leads her to reveal her source to the FBI. Here's why". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 10, 2023.
- ^ a b Wheeler, Marcy (July 3, 2018). "Putting a Face (Mine) to the Risks Posed by Gop Games on Mueller Investigation". Empty Wheel.
- ^ Multiple sources:
- Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part one". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
- Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part two". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
- Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part three". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
- Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part four". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
Check it out... arbcom changed the template to use to notify of what used to be called discretionary sanctions. (reg.[33]) Andre🚐 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Did I make a mistake? It's been over a year since their last notification, so I copied the old one and signed it. They have started acting like they had forgotten. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, the new template is different. There is one at Template:Contentious_topics/alert/DS for people who have received DS templates in the past. There's also no longer a yearly requirement I believe. Andre🚐 16:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:RSP and fact-checking are similar
Some thoughts.....
WP:RSP and fact-checking are similar because they both target the often tiny fraction of content that raises doubts and suspicions of inaccuracy. Sources and statements that are always right and raise no objections are left out. We rightly hope that all sources and commentators are truthful all the time, and we judge them harshly for any deviance.
Since POV will vary, a good source may be accused of inaccuracy by fringe editors who don't know the facts (or are POV warriors), so even the best of sources end up at WP:RSP.
When a source is not listed at WP:RSP, it usually means it is not very notable or is never controversial. It's usually a good source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Why Crossfire Hurricane?
User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane?
Here is the lead:
Why did the FBI open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (CH)? There were a number of factors, and a growing "confluence of events", that together "created a counterintelligence concern that the FBI was 'obligated' to investigate'". The FBI was forced by the apparent Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to investigate "whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign was assisting Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 election".
The Crossfire Hurricane team included a "Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" (SIA), and I wondered how much could be found in just this source:
- United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Interview of Supervisory Intelligence Analyst. Thursday, October 29, 2020.[1]
This interview occurred under the 116th United States Congress, and so was a Republican majority committee. The Mueller report and Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation are also mentioned by that source.
This personal essay is an experiment (by using only one primary source) and contains my opinions in the #Summary and #Conclusion. I have no doubt made some errors and would appreciate civil comments, corrections, and sources at User talk:Valjean. Uncontroversial and truly minor fixes are allowed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
That essay contains egregious BLP violations. I am tempted to nominate it for deletion. Are you intending to put that in main space? What is the point of the essay except to use Wikipedia to host your unsourced theories? See WP:NOTESSAY. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's not going in mainspace. What violations do you see? Does my opinion about treason bother you? I can certainly source it and/or revise it, so no need for any AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, Mr Ernie, now I have looked at the private essay and see you have redacted "Trump helped an enemy nation and its military intelligence agency (GRU) undermine the elections and national security of his own country. Whether or not he "conspired" is rather irrelevant to the fact that he actually did betray his own country." and Trump "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" and "it appears that Trump aided an enemy's military in their acts of war." Are you redacting that because it isn't directly sourced, or because you don't realize that's what he did? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Stop repeating BLP violations. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- We're discussing whether they are. It's quite debatable,
especially considering your track record of ignorance and fringe opinions on these issues.Please explain why they are BLP violations. I am perfectly content to let them remain redacted while we discuss, but they cannot be discussed without looking at them. You do realize, that if you push this issue, there's a good chance you will end up getting in trouble. Therefore, I suggest you get off your high horse and just discuss this civilly here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- We're discussing whether they are. It's quite debatable,
I can easily source and attribute the opinion that Trump may be a traitor guilty of treason. It hinges on whether cyberwarfare is war. ("If we updated our definitions of war to include cyberwar"):
- Is Donald Trump a Traitor? (Part 1 in a four-part series "Trump and Russia")[2]
- James Risen writes:
- "The fact that such an unstable egomaniac occupies the White House is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States in modern history. Which brings me to the only question about Donald Trump that I find really interesting: Is he a traitor? Did he gain the presidency through collusion with Russian President Vladimir Putin?... But if a presidential candidate or his lieutenants secretly work with a foreign government that is a longtime adversary of the United States to manipulate and then win a presidential election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason." (bold added)
- "How closely aligned is Mueller’s mandate with the legal definition of treason? That boils down to the rhetorical differences between giving “aid and comfort, in the United States or elsewhere” to “enemies” of the United States and “any links and/or coordination” between the Russian government and Trump campaign aides related to “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.”"
- James Risen writes:
- The Absent Professor. A Key Trump-Russia Intermediary Has Been Missing for Months, as the Case for Collusion Grows Stronger (Part 2 in a four-part series "Trump and Russia")[3]
- James Risen writes:
- "But with Trump, it is just one more piece in a much larger mosaic of potentially illegal or even treasonous activity."
- James Risen writes:
- The Way Trump and the GOP Deal With Russian Attacks Is 'Textbook Treason'[4]
- David Rothkopf writes:
- "This is an extraordinary moment. It is without equal, not only in American history but in modern history. A hostile foreign power intervened in our election to help elect a man president who has since actively served their interests and has defended them at every turn." (bold added)
- "That the president is abetted in his aid for the Russians ... by the leadership of the Republican Party...To attack one of our national defense leaders as we are being attacked, and to do so to benefit our foreign adversary, is textbook treason. That is strong language. But consider this: If we updated our definitions of war to include cyberwar, then aiding a foreign power engaged in such a war against us would certainly meet the Constitutional definition: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." When only semantics protect our president and our ruling party from the harsh sentences treason demands, we need to recognize the severity of the situation." (bold added)
- David Rothkopf writes:
Those sources are good enough for attributed opinions in a private essay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I have now tweaked and sourced that content to meet your BLP objections. What is to others a "sky is blue" situation is for the Trump fringe crowd rather murky. You really should get better informed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (October 29, 2020). "Interview of Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" (PDF). judiciary.senate.gov. Retrieved February 13, 2023.
- ^ Risen, James (February 16, 2018). "Is Donald Trump a Traitor?". The Intercept. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
- ^ Risen, James (April 12, 2018). "The Absent Professor. A Key Trump-Russia Intermediary Has Been Missing for Months, as the Case for Collusion Grows Stronger". The Intercept. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
- ^ Rothkopf, David (July 16, 2018). "The Way Trump and the GOP Deal With Russian Attacks Is 'Textbook Treason'". The Daily Beast. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier
Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, an ABC News documentary with George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Steele.
On October 18, 2021, this ABC News documentary aired on Hulu. It is a legitimate primary reliable source that contains content usable at the Steele dossier and Christopher Steele articles. That which is primarily about Steele would only be used at his biographical article, while some other content may be used at both articles. While most content should be sourced to secondary reliable sources which comment on the documentary, our rules for the use of primary sources allow the careful use of the documentary for some details. I suspect the right place for some of the content would be in the "Legacy" section (maybe after changing it to "Legacy and later developments"), possibly as a subsection for the documentary. We'll see out it works out, as the topic dictates the location. It may end up being nothing. The documentary revealed little real news of consequence, but it does reveal info about methods, motivations, attitudes and consequences.
I am starting a list of RS for possible use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- ABC News coverage
- Out of the Shadows: Christopher Steele defiant on dossier, says Trump still 'potential' threat[1]
- Behind the dossier: Steele dismisses James Bond comparisons -- but dossier did leave his life shaken, stirred[2]
The four pillars
In defending his work, Steele describes his intelligence reports as resting on "four pillars" of information that he believes have held up over time as accurate.
"One was, there was a large-scale Russian interference campaign in the American election in 2016," he said.
"The second was that this had been authorized and ordered at the highest levels, including Putin," he said.
"The third had been that the objective of this was to damage Hillary Clinton and to try and get this rather unorthodox candidate, Donald Trump, elected," Steele said. "And the fourth was, there was evidence of collusion between people around Trump and the Russians."[2]
- Behind the dossier: How Christopher Steele penned his reports -- and the fallout from his unmasking[3]
- Behind the dossier: Christopher Steele not worried about facing charges in Durham investigation[4]
- Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview[5]
- "Steele continues to defend ... a claim that Michael Cohen ... traveled to Prague in 2016.... 'I'm prepared to accept that not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate," Steele said. "I have yet to be convinced that that is one of them.'"
- Regarding one of his major sources for the pee tape allegation (there were others), "Steele, in response, told Stephanopoulos that his collector may have "taken fright" at having his cover blown and tried to "downplay and underestimate" his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI." This view is also mirrored by the FBI in the Inspector General's report. Here's what we already have in this article: "The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public".[6]
- Other coverage
- Christopher Steele, author of Trump dossier, defends report[7]
While the tape itself has never been revealed, Steele said he thinks it “probably does (exist), but I wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.”
When asked why Russia has never released said tape, Steele said: "Well, it hasn't needed to be released. I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the U.S." ...
Steele said Mueller's overall report reinforced the contents of his dossier.
“There was a wholesale campaign that was organized by the leadership in Russia, that its aim was to get Donald Trump elected,” he said. “And there was a lot of evidence of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, which they didn't report on and didn't admit, and in fact lied about.” ...
When asked why Cohen would not admit to the alleged meeting despite already being convicted of other crimes, Steele replied: "I think it's so incriminating and demeaning. … And the other reason is he might be scared of the consequences."[7]
- Ex-intel official who created controversial Trump Russia dossier speaks out[8]
- Christopher Steele Defends Russia Dossier, Says Trump Golden Shower Tape "Probably Does" Exist[9]
- Ex-spy Christopher Steele stands behind the thrust of his Trump-Russia dossier, even the salacious 'kompromat'[10]
- https://www.axios.com/steele-defends-trump-russia-dossier-abc-interview-5bedc6db-254a-4979-9d82-0ac8041c2398.html
- "I stand by the work we did, the sources that we had," he tells ABC News
- Trump's "golden showers" reaction
- Trump's "golden showers" reaction to news of the documentary was a seemingly unprovoked rant that he "wasn't into golden showers". Several RS made the connection; his rant wasn't something "out of the blue". Sources, with attribution, for that event and connection....
- https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-golden-showers-denial.html
- https://news.yahoo.com/trump-shares-thoughts-golden-showers-080306066.html
- https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/donald-trump-golden-showers-denial
- https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-golden-showers-republican-donor-event-1242797/
- https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/brings-up-golden-showers-unprompted-during-private-event-with-donors/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gop-fraud-claims/2021/10/14/f37887fe-2cfc-11ec-985d-3150f7e106b2_story.html
- "Unprompted, he brought up an unsubstantiated claim he had interactions with prostitutes in Moscow before he ran for president.
“I’m not into golden showers,” he told the crowd. “You know the great thing, our great first lady — ‘That one,’ she said, ‘I don’t believe that one.’ ”
- "Unprompted, he brought up an unsubstantiated claim he had interactions with prostitutes in Moscow before he ran for president.
- Own thoughts
A major objection to the golden showers allegation has been that some of the reports alluded to by Danchenko, who apparently didn't have the best sources for this info, came from "word of mouth and hearsay" "conversations with friends over beers" (IG Report). So be it, but people and RS often ignore that some of the seven sources were within Trump's own orbit (Millian and Cohen took it seriously) and workers at the hotel, not hookers and people joking in Moscow bars.
It's a BS objection, because how else would any normal person talk about such a sticky, dripping, allegation? Of course, they'll make Trump the butt of jokes. When Moscow (and Saint Petersberg) hookers told of how their colleagues were involved in the incident, those rumors spread in the hooker community, and people always make such a topic into a joke and scorn. That doesn't mean the allegation isn't true. It's pretty much the only way such an incident would become known.
So is it true? We don't know for sure, but it fits with Trump's character (he's known for sexual escapades and acts of hatred) and his own history with urolagnia (liking the sight of peeing). He liked it in Las Vegas, shortly before going to Moscow. Also, his own hatred of Obama is well-known, and it's entirely in character for Trump to come up with the idea of defiling that bed because of Obama.
The Mueller Report contains a footnote that suggests that Trump may have heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen had received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump, and Cohen told investigators he had spoken to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen".[11]
So Cohen did his job as fixer. He knew what Trump was capable of doing and took the rumor seriously, treating it as a real risk. He began to investigate, using his friend Rtskhiladze, who then started researching the matter. He also treated it as a real risk. We don't know how much back-and-forth correspondence there was between them; we only get one side, but there was obviously previous contact. After a while, Rtskhiladze reported back to Cohen with the good news that he had "stopped the flow of tapes". They believed there was a risk, enough to try to avert exposure. That was part of Cohen's job as Trump's "fixer".
So whether it occurred or not, there was enough risk that Trump had done such a thing that Cohen treated it as real. Innocent people don't do this. Millian was also one of the sources for the pee tape allegation, and he was inside the Trump campaign. These actions lend much weight to the evidence that the incident may have happened as alleged. It remains one of the many unproven claims, but one that is likely true.
Steele still allows that the pee tape allegation may not be true. This has always been his view, often expressed as a 50-50 likelihood. Steele's partner at Orbis, Chris Burrows, as well as Steele's wife, tried to talk him out of including it, but Steele followed standard MI6 practice, which is to include everything from all sources in your original notes. Later it gets checked for accuracy, and a final report might not include it. BuzzFeed short-circuited this process by publishing the unfinished notes without permission. The fault is BuzzFeed's, not Steele's. Steele knew that Putin's FSB often included sex tapes in their kompromat, so he couldn't ignore the reports. (I don't know if Steele also factored in Trump's personality and thus the likelihood of such actions. No one who knows Trump would be surprised if this turned out to be true.)
Regarding sources, Steele shares the exact same view as the FBI, revealed in the IG Report, that when a source is exposed, they get scared and try to minimize their involvement. The "confidential source will often take fright and try and downplay and underestimate what they've said and done". (Steele) That's also what the FBI previously told Horowitz. Both Danchenko and Millian did that, and Steele agrees with the FBI. Those who accuse Steele of faulty logic should accuse the FBI, but I doubt they know better than the FBI.
Steele wrote 17 memos which are now known as the "Steele dossier". He doesn't like the term "dossier" "because it wasn't a dossier. It's a series of reports on a live issue, the election campaign, running through time. These reports were not collated and presented in one offering, nor were they analyzed in detail by us. Effectively, it was a running commentary. It wasn't a dossier."
Steele still believes that "the evidence suggests that" "Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians".
- Something different
- Steele included in Vanity Fair's The 2018 New Establishment List][12]
- "Golden-shower glory: The former head of M.I.6’s Russia desk compiled the infamous dossier that raised the possibility Donald Trump was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Steele even grew a beard and went into hiding—merely adding to his mythic reputation on the left."[12]
- Russia dossier author criticizes Trump, slams 'strange and troubling times'[13]
- "The former spy, Christopher Steele, wrote to Vanity Fair shortly after he was named to the magazine’s “2018 New Establishment List.” ....[his comments follow]"[13]
- Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled controversial dossier, breaks silence to criticize Trump[14]
- Radhika Jones sets a new tone at Vanity Fair: 'My goal is to reflect the culture as I see it'[15]
- "The 100-person New Establishment List featured Steele, the former intelligence officer, at No. 38. He has been in hiding, but he broke his silence by sending Jones a thank you note. He said he would have liked to attend the summit, but could not given his “present legal and political situation.”[15]
- Template
- <ref name=" ">{{cite web | author-link1= | last1= | first1= | author-link2= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | access-date= | quote= }}</ref>
References
- ^ Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan (October 18, 2021). "Out of the Shadows: Christopher Steele defiant on dossier, says Trump still 'potential' threat". ABC News. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
- ^ a b Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan, Chris (October 19, 2021). "Behind the dossier: Steele dismisses James Bond comparisons -- but dossier did leave his life shaken, stirred". ABC News. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
- ^ Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan, Chris (October 18, 2021). "Behind the dossier: How Christopher Steele penned his reports -- and the fallout from his unmasking". ABC News. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
- ^ Mosk, Matthew; Bruggeman, Lucien; Donovan, Chris (October 18, 2021). "Behind the dossier: Christopher Steele not worried about facing charges in Durham investigation". ABC News. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
- ^ Bruggeman, Lucien; Mosk, Matthew (October 17, 2021). "Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview". ABC News. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
OIG_12/9/2019was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Tillman, Rachel (October 18, 2021). "Christopher Steele, author of Trump dossier, defends report". Spectrum News NY1. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
- ^ Pellish, Aaron; Herb, Jeremy (October 18, 2021). "Ex-intel official who created controversial Trump Russia dossier speaks out". CNN. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
- ^ Levin, Bess (October 18, 2021). "Christopher Steele Defends Russia Dossier, Says Trump Golden Shower Tape "Probably Does" Exist". Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
- ^ Weber, Peter (October 18, 2021). "Ex-spy Christopher Steele stands behind the thrust of his Trump-Russia dossier, even the salacious 'kompromat'". The Week. Retrieved October 20, 2021.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Kessler_4/24/2019was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Bilton, Nick; et al. (October 3, 2018). "The 2018 New Establishment List". Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
- ^ a b Cohen, Marshall (October 10, 2018). "Russia dossier author criticizes Trump, slams 'strange and troubling times'". CNN. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
- ^ Macfarlane, Julia (October 10, 2018). "Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled controversial dossier, breaks silence to criticize Trump". ABC News. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
- ^ a b Stelter, Brian (October 10, 2018). "Radhika Jones sets a new tone at Vanity Fair: 'My goal is to reflect the culture as I see it'". CNN. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
Daily Mail vs Fox
Always been a curious thing this. Relatively speaking, the Mail's complete and total ban was achieved here very easily, yet achieving the same outcome for Fox seems to still be far out of reach. The Mail being seen here as equivalent to Infowars is now evidently uncontroversial. The idea that the Mail routinely knowingly publishes falsehoods for profit, similarly uncontroversial. Yet to say these things about Fox? Still apparently controversial. My personal view is that the Mail ban is an absurdity, and needs to be revisited. But I already know Wikipedia is, for whatever reason, going to cling onto it until the bitter end. Every year that Fox is seen differently to the Mail here, seems to be a nail in the coffin of its credibility. If it ever even had any. Bandorrr (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- I completely agree. You should comment at the discussion at Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- A sad reality of Wikipedia is that outsider's opinions matter little. But if it was possible, I'd push this forward by focusing on the issue of how to view a publication/platform that is apparently knowingly and consistently publishing falsehoods for commercial reasons. This is the most serious charge levied against the Mail by Wikipedia, the thing that underpins this idea here that every word (and picture) on every Mail platform, regardless of type, context, authorship and supporting evidence, has to be assumed to be a potential profit driven lie. I have no real doubt that if asked today, the Wikipedia community would vehemently reaffirm that this is still its strongly held position wrt the Mail. Even though in comparison to what Fox was doing to promote the Big Lie, things like claiming Didsbury is a no go zone for white people for example is pretty small beer, and certainly more disputable as proof of actual malice rather than extreme editorialisation. In the UK context, what Fox has been caught doing, is eerily similar to what the Sun (also a Fox title) did in the 1980s, when it knowingly and persistently printed lies about Liverpool soccer fans, on the flimsy excuse they were being fed this stuff by people in power. They did this even after proper journalism had raised sufficient questions about its likely falsity, simply because it fed into the zeitgeist of the time (that soccer fans are horrid), and thus, were manifestly doing it for profit. It's history like that which makes the Mail ban here (with the likes of the Sun still not subject to an equivalent ban) look so absurd, as well as when looking at its parent, Fox. Seen in that light, obvious questions arise if there is a continuing reluctance here to apply the same view to Fox as the Mail. It exposes the inconsistency very well I think, if people here are happily taking the view that the Mail knowingly tells a lie anywhere, even on the most trivial and little viewed stories, simply for clicks. If the Mail does it, who can seriously argue based on these revelations, that the standards of Fox's management and US laws could and would prevent the exact same culture existing at Fox? At least at the national level. The UK has far better libel laws and press regulation. As an alternative, a potential uplift would I guess be to have both subjected to the same blanket ban for any content deemed remotely controversial (which, if we're being serious about source use, should never be being sourced to tabloids anyway!?!), with anything else included here only with attribution and vigorous satisfaction that no better source exists. But I seriously doubt that would fly at all, given the sheer level of prejudice held here against the Mail. Bandorrr (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- That is a fundamental misstatement of Wikipedia policy and purpose relating to Verification and Neutral Point of View. If we happen to exclude some of the true statements on the Mail or Fox or similar sites, that does no harm. If we validate a false statement, on the other hand, it does great harm. So our policy prevents that harm. It's immaterial whether we use a deprecated source for valid statements of fact, because such statements will have many reputable mainstream sources from which to choose. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- This in no way explains the differing approach in policy to Fox and the Mail. It also asks people to believe there is any logic in Wikipedia, a platform with zero liability and little repute, taking a tougher stance on the Mail than these reputable sources (where the mere attributed use of Mail is a thing) do. Bandorrr (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- That is a fundamental misstatement of Wikipedia policy and purpose relating to Verification and Neutral Point of View. If we happen to exclude some of the true statements on the Mail or Fox or similar sites, that does no harm. If we validate a false statement, on the other hand, it does great harm. So our policy prevents that harm. It's immaterial whether we use a deprecated source for valid statements of fact, because such statements will have many reputable mainstream sources from which to choose. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- A sad reality of Wikipedia is that outsider's opinions matter little. But if it was possible, I'd push this forward by focusing on the issue of how to view a publication/platform that is apparently knowingly and consistently publishing falsehoods for commercial reasons. This is the most serious charge levied against the Mail by Wikipedia, the thing that underpins this idea here that every word (and picture) on every Mail platform, regardless of type, context, authorship and supporting evidence, has to be assumed to be a potential profit driven lie. I have no real doubt that if asked today, the Wikipedia community would vehemently reaffirm that this is still its strongly held position wrt the Mail. Even though in comparison to what Fox was doing to promote the Big Lie, things like claiming Didsbury is a no go zone for white people for example is pretty small beer, and certainly more disputable as proof of actual malice rather than extreme editorialisation. In the UK context, what Fox has been caught doing, is eerily similar to what the Sun (also a Fox title) did in the 1980s, when it knowingly and persistently printed lies about Liverpool soccer fans, on the flimsy excuse they were being fed this stuff by people in power. They did this even after proper journalism had raised sufficient questions about its likely falsity, simply because it fed into the zeitgeist of the time (that soccer fans are horrid), and thus, were manifestly doing it for profit. It's history like that which makes the Mail ban here (with the likes of the Sun still not subject to an equivalent ban) look so absurd, as well as when looking at its parent, Fox. Seen in that light, obvious questions arise if there is a continuing reluctance here to apply the same view to Fox as the Mail. It exposes the inconsistency very well I think, if people here are happily taking the view that the Mail knowingly tells a lie anywhere, even on the most trivial and little viewed stories, simply for clicks. If the Mail does it, who can seriously argue based on these revelations, that the standards of Fox's management and US laws could and would prevent the exact same culture existing at Fox? At least at the national level. The UK has far better libel laws and press regulation. As an alternative, a potential uplift would I guess be to have both subjected to the same blanket ban for any content deemed remotely controversial (which, if we're being serious about source use, should never be being sourced to tabloids anyway!?!), with anything else included here only with attribution and vigorous satisfaction that no better source exists. But I seriously doubt that would fly at all, given the sheer level of prejudice held here against the Mail. Bandorrr (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Trump
I'm very much agreeable with whatever you & others can iron out, concerning your current proposals for Donald Trump's page. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal
User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal
Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News
Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Corporation or something like that.
- Filed: January 17, 2022
- Certified: February 16, 2023
- DOMINION'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY OF FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC AND FOX CORPORATION Dated: January 17, 2022 PUBLIC VERSION FILED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2023
In December 2020 and January 2021, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax, and the American Thinker withdrew allegations they had reported about Dominion and Smartmatic after one or both companies threatened legal action for defamation.[1][2][3][4] In January 2021, Dominion filed defamation lawsuits against former Trump campaign lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, seeking $1.3 billion in damages from each.[5][6] After Dominion filed its lawsuit against Powell, One America News Network (OANN) removed all references to Dominion and Smartmatic from its website, though without issuing public retractions.[7][8] During subsequent months, Dominion filed suits seeking $1.6 billion in damages from each of Fox News, Newsmax, OANN and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne,[9] while also suing Mike Lindell and his corporation, MyPillow.
Despite motions by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuits, judges ruled that the cases against Fox News, Lindell, and MyPillow could proceed.[10][11]
On 16 February 2023, Dominion Voting Systems filed a motion for summary judgment against Fox News, with dozens of internal communications,[12] sent during the months after the 2020 presidential election, showing several prominent network hosts and senior executives—including chairman Murdoch and CEO Suzanne Scott—discussing their knowledge that the election fraud allegations they were reporting were false. The communications showed the network was concerned that not reporting the falsehoods would alienate viewers and cause them to switch to rival conservative networks, impacting corporate profitability.[13]
- See also
- Dominion Voting Systems#Defamation lawsuit against Fox News
- Fox News#2020 election fraud allegations
- Fox News controversies#False claims about the 2020 election
- Mike Lindell
- MyPillow
- One America News Network#Dominion Voting Systems
References
- ^ Feldman, Josh (December 18, 2020). "Lou Dobbs Airs Stunning Fact-Check of His Own Election Claims". Mediaite. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
- ^ Feldman, Josh (December 20, 2020). "Maria Bartiromo Airs Fact-Check, Adds 'We Will Keep Investigating'". Mediaite. Archived from the original on January 11, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
- ^ Barr, Jeremy (January 21, 2021). "Newsmax issues sweeping 'clarification' debunking its own coverage of election misinformation". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 21, 2020. Retrieved December 22, 2020.
- ^ Corasaniti, Nick (January 25, 2021). "Rudy Giuliani Sued by Dominion Voting Systems Over False Election Claims". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
- ^ Brown, Emma (January 8, 2021). "Dominion sues pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, seeking more than $1.3 billion". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved January 9, 2021.
- ^ Polantz, Katelyn (January 25, 2021). "Dominion sues Giuliani for $1.3 billion over 'Big Lie'". CNN. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Shamsian, Jacob (January 21, 2021). "Trump-ally media outlet OAN quietly deleted articles about Dominion despite publicly doubling down on election conspiracy theories". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 20, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.
- ^ Thalen, Mikael (January 21, 2021). "Pro-Trump outlet OAN is deleting all its articles about Dominion". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.
- ^ Azadi, Elahe (August 10, 2021). "Dominion sues Newsmax and One America News over election fraud claims". The Washington Post.
- ^ Dominion Voting wins key decision in lawsuit against Fox News - CNN Video, 17 December 2021, retrieved 2021-12-20
- ^ "MyPillow launches yet another effort to get Dominion's defamation lawsuit dismissed". August 25, 2021.
- ^
- Barr, Jeremy; Weiner, Rachel. "Fox News hosts, execs privately doubted 2020 conspiracy claims shared on air". Washington Post. Retrieved 19 February 2023.
- DOMINION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY OF FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC AND FOX CORPORATION Dated: January 17, 2022 PUBLIC VERSION FILED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2023
- ^
- Jeremy W. Peters; Katie Robertson (February 16, 2023). "Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Election Fraud Claims. 'Crazy Stuff.'". The New York TImes.
- See also the brief itself.
Drafting content offline
The same policies and guidelines apply to all submissions, whether or not you drafted them first on your personal computer. The edit will look the same regardless. One issue to note, should you just do a plain installation, is that all of the templates and modules from English Wikipedia won't be available. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand your first sentence. That's clear. On the second point, wow! Of course. I would need to use a host where Mediawiki is tied to the English Wikipedia for them to work. Lots to think about. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Please...
...look at the meanings of the Denmark and Danish Realm articles. Georgia guy (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the difference. If you meant that the content was misplaced and belonged in the Kingdom article, then that would make sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Meek
Thanks for your help doing basic tidy-up at Meek's article, I did have a question though because while we say something like "You can't use the daily mail to reference his divorce because it often doesn't fact-check itself", we have the issue where his divorce filing is a public record available online and it's obviously true - so it's true, and it's notable because it's been reported in the media, but the media in which it's reported is considered to sometimes tell untruths...I'm hitting an impasse on that issue (while trying to avoid using the Daily Mail since somebody showed me the link suggesting against it; I don't have a problem with the DM myself but almost all the facts can be sourced to other publications) - which also raises a second question. If I say "John Smith once dated Jane Doe", is it better if I put 2-3 citations for a fact, or better to only use one? Not sure if I'm "overdoing" it or "underdoing" it sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- What sources have you found? If "almost all the facts can be sourced to other publications", why not use them? As far as number of citations, the more controversial the content, the more citations. I tend toward too many, and others can then object. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you
...for keeping an eye on articles, and insisting that content that is added be sourced, including at the Lars van Trier page. It is refreshing to see editors that still show consistent care in keeping with WP:VERIFY, and other foundational principles. Kudos. An educator. 2601:246:C700:F5:989F:41EB:E351:AFD6 (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Reliable sources are our foundation, not our own opinions and biases. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Amen to that. I have had untold discussions here with some, even regulars, that do not believe all needs be sourced (only the debatable or controversial). I have wasted too much breath, and am resigned simply to supporting positive examples. By the way, at the LvT article, an earlier non-logging editor, IP address 136.158.78.115, made extensive edits, both adding information without source, and removing sourced information. I marked some of the former with [citation needed], but all the edits from that location should be reviewed. (You reverted at least one to the lead, and left them a message at their talk page, earlier, but there may be more from them that needs scrutiny.) As a non-logging editor myself, I do not do bold redactive edits, even when another is in egregious violation of WP policies. (Because, long experience has shown that Twinkle and its users do not exercise discretion when seeing deletions by a non-logging editor, even if proper.) So perhaps look in again there, when time allows. Cheers, all the best. 2601:246:C700:F5:989F:41EB:E351:AFD6 (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Montagnier
I've replied at Talk:Luc_Montagnier#February_2023 --Mick2 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Good. Remember to sign your comments. Don't edit or comment while logged out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Mueller not 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law."
| Trump–Russia relations |
|---|
.jpg) |
To understand the Trump–Russia crime scene, ask the following question and focus on the second part, because the first is proven:
- Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but what role did Trump and his campaign play in that interference? That's what the Crossfire Hurricane team and Mueller wanted to understand.
We know that Mueller was not able to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination" beyond a shadow of a doubt, possibly because of all the obstruction, destruction of evidence, and secret communication using burner phones and other devices that leave no trace. Mueller did prove that such devious means of communication were used.
Here is something incredible we also know. Mueller definitely "did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law."[1][2]
Conspiracy is a crime that is very hard to prove. A crime itself may be easy to prove, but to prove that the participants actually conspired to commit the crime, one must pass a very high bar of evidence. Finding a formal written or oral agreement of "you do this and I'll do that" to commit the crime is often impossible, and it may never have existed as a formal agreement, even though the participants planned their actions.
The report also detailed multiple acts of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, but did not make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether Trump broke the law, suggesting that Congress should make such a determination.[1][2] Investigators decided they could not "apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes" as an Office of Legal Counsel opinion stated that a sitting president could not be indicted,[3] and investigators would not accuse him of a crime when he cannot clear his name in court.[4] The report concluded that Congress, having the authority to take action against a president for wrongdoing, "may apply the obstruction laws".[3] The House of Representatives subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry following the Trump–Ukraine scandal, but did not pursue an article of impeachment related to the Mueller investigation.[5][6]
Notice these words: "Investigators decided they could not "apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." IOW, they already decided from the start that investigators were NOT allowed to find Trump guilty of a crime, so they focused on a crime that is nearly impossible to prove, and they succeeded in their goal of NOT proving such a crime.
If any crime was committed, the participants were allowed to go free because it was not proven they "conspired" to commit the crime. I don't know of any court of law that operates this way. Bank robbers do get convicted, as the crime itself is the important thing, not whether they "conspired" to rob the bank. In spite of this, many were indeed prosecuted and convicted. Then Trump pardoned many of them.
Mueller definitely "did not make a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' on whether Trump broke the law." He chose to attempt to prove the unprovable (conspiracy) and succeeded in not proving it. Job well done.
Apologists for Russia and so-called "Russiagate" revisionists forget about the collusion and unpatriotic acts by Trump and his campaign and go so far as to deny Russian interference. That is factually and patriotically wrong.
A conspiracy was not proven, but Mueller had chosen not to focus on all the collusion he found in the process of the investigation. They found plenty of that, but most of it was not a crime, just terribly unpatriotic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Barrett, Devlin; Zapotosky, Matt (April 17, 2019). "Mueller report lays out obstruction evidence against the president". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
- ^ a b Farley, Robert; Robertson, Lori; Gore, D'Angelo; Spencer, Saranac Hale; Fichera, Angelo; McDonald, Jessica (April 18, 2019). "What the Mueller Report Says About Obstruction". FactCheck.org. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
- ^ a b Mascaro, Lisa (April 18, 2019). "Mueller drops obstruction dilemma on Congress". AP News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
- ^ Segers, Grace (May 29, 2019). "Mueller: If it were clear president committed no crime, "we would have said so"". CBS News. Retrieved June 2, 2019.
- ^ Cheney, Kyle; Caygle, Heather; Bresnahan, John (December 10, 2019). "Why Democrats sidelined Mueller in impeachment articles". Politico. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
- ^ Blake, Aaron (December 10, 2019). "Democrats ditch 'bribery' and Mueller in Trump impeachment articles. But is that the smart play?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
"Midyear Exam" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Midyear Exam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Midyear Exam until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
editing behavior at Alternative medicine
Valjean, You recently opened a talk page discussion in this edit. Fifteen hours later you edited the lede of the article, and shortly thereafter hatted/closed the discussion. The compressed time frame, obscuration of the discussion, and the rapid fire edits you have been making since then are counterproductive. Also concerning is that you are flooding the article with quotes from poor quality sources such as Buzzfeed and The Skeptic's Dictionary, both yellow at WP:RSP. Cedar777 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Cedar777, I only hatted the part of the discussion where we had finished the subject, and if necessary can be unhatted, as I wrote at the bottom of the hatted part. The unfinished parts are still open. When you are not participating, you miss stuff like that and your complaints seem unwarranted and out of place. Perform some due diligence before complaining.
- Instead of complaining here, why haven't you participated at the talk page as other editors have done? We have had good conversations, have engaged in a pleasant back-and-forth to tweak and refine edits, and most of my edits have been in line with the consensus there. You could have been part of it.
- A couple edits today have been typical bold edits with sources appropriate for the type of edit, in line with how we use sources mentioned at WP:RSP. Context is everything. It all depends on how the source is being used.
- If you still have real concerns, you are welcome to mention them there, one-at-a-time, and please do it in a constructive and civil manner, not in an accusatory manner as done here. I am not a newbie. I am always willing to work with other editors and take what they say seriously. I have been here so long that I helped to write our policies and pioneer much of the alternative medical content. As a medical professional and subject matter expert, my edits are generally highly respected, but I still listen to other editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cedar777 nothing in this is permanent, the project is never done, etc. One can view Valjean's actions here as a slightly longer form of bold editing, along the WP:BRD continuum. One can still revert, one can still add to these discussions. Nothing is preventing input in any of the above. It is not "counterproductive" in my view, any more than a single bold edit would be counterproductive. I would say this talk page section is counterproductive, when you could have just reverted the hatting and added your input. Or just made another section. Or a zillion other things that don't involve accusing editors of misconduct without citing any policy or guideline. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just wanted to support Val here, as the improvements to Alt-Med in recent days have been done through rather informative and thoughtful talk page discussion. I also note that the discussion is not closed or hatted, perhaps I missed that. - Roxy the dog 15:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, I responded to the complaint here by unhatting that thread. I had left a note explaining it could be unhatted if necessary. I have done it and removed that note. I did not hat it to prevent discussion or hide the matter, just to cleanup distraction. If it's necessary to discuss the matters in that thread, then we can discuss them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bottom line? I thing good work is happening. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. Most articles are in need of improvement, and as volunteers we act in good faith to do that. I'm not perfect and do make mistakes. I am open to correction, and I do listen to the concerns of others. I just find the approach here rather counter-productive. It comes across as a personal attack and unconstructive griping. There are more civil ways to do this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bottom line? I thing good work is happening. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, I responded to the complaint here by unhatting that thread. I had left a note explaining it could be unhatted if necessary. I have done it and removed that note. I did not hat it to prevent discussion or hide the matter, just to cleanup distraction. If it's necessary to discuss the matters in that thread, then we can discuss them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just wanted to support Val here, as the improvements to Alt-Med in recent days have been done through rather informative and thoughtful talk page discussion. I also note that the discussion is not closed or hatted, perhaps I missed that. - Roxy the dog 15:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
No. 18: Censorship-Industrial Complex
Needs better sourcing. From Twitter Files.
On March 9, 2023, Matt Taibbi summarized his Testimony on the "Censorship-Industrial Complex" to the U.S. House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government as Twitter Files #18.[1] Michael Shellenberger also summarized his Testimony on Twitter and included his testimony as a link in the Twitter thread.[2]
References
- ^ Matt Taibbi. Censorship-Industrial Complex; Michael Shellenberger, The Censorship Industrial Complex. U.S. Government Support For Domestic Censorship and Disinformation Campaigns, 2016 - 2022.Testimony by Michael Shellenberger to The House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, March 9, 2023. Summary.
- ^ Soave, Robby. Democrats Deride the Twitter Files Reporters as 'So-Called Journalists' Reason, March 10, 2023.
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
"Assault"
Re: Special:Diff/1146398416. Please tone it down. Being asked to use appropriate terminology is not assault. You've already been made aware once of the heightened expectations of editorial conduct in this topic area. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- And you own that topic area? Who gave you the right to intimidate other editors who are making good faith attempts to improve content? Stop bullying me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Valjean. Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Valjean, I get what you mean when you use "aggressor" but I also believe that the word could be understood as someone who initiates physical activity. [34] Perhaps you can instead word it that "X initiated the situation". Next, I'd have to say, you're kind of playing with fire, by mentioning male genitalia, with reference to a trans woman. I get your point, it's just that the issue is really sensitive. Some people might not agree with it. Lastly, if I were you, I would shut up at WP:AE at this point. starship.paint (exalt) 08:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Valjean: FYI, cis is short for cisgender, and is not an acronym. See the article on that word for the etymology. Just mentioning it as I saw you refer to "CIS" a couple of times. Funcrunch (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. Believe it or not, I actually knew that one. Was I mistaken to capitalize it? I often see it that way. BTW, I really appreciate this contact. I need all the help I can get to get up to speed on these issues and terminologies. Words are the foundation of everything. They express and form our understandings, so it's important to "get it right". You know far more than I do, so please stop by anytime. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Valjean, I may have messed up the ping, but wanted to ensure you saw my encouragement to you at User talk:Maddy from Celeste#An apology. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Beccaynr, your latest comment deserves its own section, so I moved it. See "#Reparations" below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Valjean if you were typing on your phone then there's a decent chance it would autocorrect to CIS. The reason behind that is that it is also the abbreviation for the Commonwealth of Independent States. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Immanuelle, I often edit on my phone, but am unsure if I did at that time. I probably would have capitalized it anyway, as I have seen that done many times. Now I know better. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Valjean, I may have messed up the ping, but wanted to ensure you saw my encouragement to you at User talk:Maddy from Celeste#An apology. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. Believe it or not, I actually knew that one. Was I mistaken to capitalize it? I often see it that way. BTW, I really appreciate this contact. I need all the help I can get to get up to speed on these issues and terminologies. Words are the foundation of everything. They express and form our understandings, so it's important to "get it right". You know far more than I do, so please stop by anytime. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Reparations
Hi Valjean, I appreciate your clear and active interest in learning more about this topic area, and I added a possible resource to your developing list of resources. In the meantime, I am wondering if you would consider striking the comments I identified in my statement at the pending AE request as potentially disruptive or battleground, to help bring the temperature down in this dispute.
As general background, I often favor a restorative justice approach to on-wiki conflict, which is part of why I think actively addressing some of your past statements could be beneficial, but it is because you have been so engaged in openness to learning, seeking feedback, and making apology that this seems like an idea to suggest for your consideration. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Beccaynr, I love your thinking. This would be really good, not just for me, but for everyone.
- In retrospect, I can now see that I wrote some really stupid things, partially caused by my ignorance, and also by my misidentification of Maddy. My mouse cursor had hovered over some other editor, and that little window of information had quickly revealed a relatively young cis woman, who said she was a newbie and who wanted any advice and help she could get. Then I got her mixed up with Maddy, and it wasn't until I did offer advice and Maddy responded by asking "Where did I ask for your advice?" that I discovered she was a different editor.
- That's when I first learned that Maddy was trans. It's very plain on her user page. By that time, a lot of damage and miscommunication had occurred. I tried to stay focused on the thread topic, but she kept hitting back at me, the editor, thus repeatedly violating the "comment on content, not editors" rule for talk pages. That really irritated, frustrated, and confused me. Therefore my response seemed aggressive and battleground. The real context (complete misunderstanding on both sides) was something entirely different than what it appeared. Therefore the whole affair should be reevaluated in that light. It felt like she was unfairly attacking me, the editor, and not staying on-topic, so we really talked past each other for a while before I got even a small clue what was happening. It was a real clusterfuck and recipe for disaster, and she took me to AE. The rest is history. I have tried to learn from it, and will continue that journey. I am very sorry for disrespecting her and the trans community. That was not my intention. Now I need to focus on the damage done.
- Your suggestion of what I'll call "reparations" is a good one. Striking my errors will be a good thing. I am still a newbie and quite ignorant, so I may not immediately recognize which words and other things in those conversations were problematic, so I'd appreciate your help. I'll take a look at AE (a painful experience and not good for my depression) and try to find and then address those things you mentioned. A very BIG thank you for being a true friend. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Beccaynr, I have now stricken those comments. I'm sure there are other goofs and unfortunate things like misgendering, but I'm not sure if it's constructive to keep striking. Maybe, maybe not. What do you think? The misgendering thing is still weird for me, as I have mistakenly thought that we should respect a person's gender identity choices and identify a person by the gender identity they used at a given time in their life, IOW to respect their choice at that time when speaking about that time in their life. That means referring to a young woman as "she" because that's how she identified herself at the time, and then later say "him" when "she" later transitioned to a trans man.
- It's confusing, but I'll get used to it. It just involves some mental gymnastics and pretty radical (Is there any other situation in life where this is allowed?) historical revisionism and memory holing. I have to impose a later identity onto the previous identity. Well, now the new understandings have to dominate and suppress the older understandings, memories, and practices. Unfortunately, without daily dealings with the person, it's more difficult to really learn. If I am not daily saying "he", then "she" tends to pop up. My wife's nephew (now a trans man) still deals with parents who have difficulty with this and frequently revert back to using
herhis birth name and birth gender pronouns when talking to him and others. I'm even further from that situation. I have tended to be as inconsistent as they have. We are all old people now, and it's really true that change does get harder. It sucks to be old, but what's the alternative? If you're not getting older, you're dead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Valjean. I had mentioned in my AE statement that from my view, I recognize how you could feel a need to defend yourself personally, and how I also saw comments by several editors about language used as directed towards content, not you personally. In the past week, I have had fairly egregious personal attacks directed towards me personally, so in my experience, there can be a difference in how comments are made, but also recognize the potential impact when a comment about content feels like a personal strike against your core values.
- So from my view, there is a difference in comments that seem to assume your good faith by offering feedback about some language used in discussion (the content) - the assumption seems to be that you are open to reflection on and consideration of the feedback, just as you are now. I think there is a lot to reflect on for everyone involved about how to effectively communicate with our imperfect text-based methods, and I want to reiterate how appreciative I am of your demonstration of commitment to learning and development. With regard to other situations where terminology for people evolves over time, history has a variety of examples. While I was writing this comment, I also see you have taken further steps to follow up on my suggestion of striking various comments, and that it is also very much appreciated. Beccaynr (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have indeed received a lot of good feedback. I think everyone was acting in good faith. It was just a big miscommunication situation with a guy who didn't realize he was speaking the wrong language. Now I think I'll limit my engagement on transgender-related article talk pages until I can handle the terminology stuff much better. It's too risky right now, and wounds are still open. It will take time. I'll instead focus on the myriad other topics on my watchlist and the subpage I have started. That will be a safe place where I can discuss trans- and gender-related issues, a place where you and others are welcome to correct and teach me. The talk page hasn't been used yet, so feel free to open a discussion there. We really need a neutral place for NOTFORUM discussions. They ultimately make us better editors, so it's a justifiable use of user space. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think we all have to make our best judgments on participation in topic areas at any given time, and I applaud your focus on self-care and healing. I also appreciate the reminder about the Talk page of your userspace resource page - I think that is a great opportunity for discussion about resources, etc. I am actually in the midst of preparing (and somewhat procrastinating) to be on a medical wikibreak in the nearish future, so I may not have time or focus to contribute as much as I otherwise would prefer for now. I have my own self-care that I need to focus on as well, but I look forward to being able to participate in the future. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have indeed received a lot of good feedback. I think everyone was acting in good faith. It was just a big miscommunication situation with a guy who didn't realize he was speaking the wrong language. Now I think I'll limit my engagement on transgender-related article talk pages until I can handle the terminology stuff much better. It's too risky right now, and wounds are still open. It will take time. I'll instead focus on the myriad other topics on my watchlist and the subpage I have started. That will be a safe place where I can discuss trans- and gender-related issues, a place where you and others are welcome to correct and teach me. The talk page hasn't been used yet, so feel free to open a discussion there. We really need a neutral place for NOTFORUM discussions. They ultimately make us better editors, so it's a justifiable use of user space. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Are my emails coming through?
I have never used the service before so I am unsure whether my responses are actually reaching you. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Immanuelle, I see there are two emails waiting for me. I have just come home and will read them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Valjean/LGBTQ resources
.Org
Woulda thought ".org/hatewatch" is a .... little selective and slanted? Never mind. No worries. Kieronoldham (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- The SPLC (like the ADL) is indeed a biased source, and NPOV allows us to use biased sources. If there is any risk of a question, follow my mantra for any opinion source: "When in doubt, attribute it." It is factual and on the right side of history. At WP:RSP, it is a greenlit source (the best rating):
- The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.
- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is a little vague as a justification? "When in doubt, attribute it" (perhaps as long as it perhaps adheres to one's personal preferences) and aye, this rationale could be open to be selectively utilized to push narratives or dogmas? Since when is Trump Jr. a "hate group/figure" (or has affiliated as such with)? No worries. This article ain't on my watchlist. Will add too many successive paragraphs begin with the same word.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- The source was about Jack Posobiec and how Trump Jr associates with people like him. We are known by our associates, and this is unsurprising as he is like his father. His father is close friends with Bannon, Alex Jones, and Hannity. Let that sink in. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not willing or wishing to engage in a text/verbal war with another Wikipedian (we are both better than that). Tarnish one; tarnish the other (father or son). I do not slant to one side. Sincere and best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- The source was about Jack Posobiec and how Trump Jr associates with people like him. We are known by our associates, and this is unsurprising as he is like his father. His father is close friends with Bannon, Alex Jones, and Hannity. Let that sink in. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is a little vague as a justification? "When in doubt, attribute it" (perhaps as long as it perhaps adheres to one's personal preferences) and aye, this rationale could be open to be selectively utilized to push narratives or dogmas? Since when is Trump Jr. a "hate group/figure" (or has affiliated as such with)? No worries. This article ain't on my watchlist. Will add too many successive paragraphs begin with the same word.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Repeated edits to guideline during content dispute
Hi, please see WP:PGBOLD, which says: “Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.”
You’ve made two edits to a guideline today, in the middle of a content dispute which you did not disclose, while also ignoring a discussion I started at the guideline’s talk page. I reverted both edits to the guideline because I disagree with them, and I do not believe either one merely clarified what is already implied by the guideline. Please be more careful. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"Controversial subjects" revamp
Assange fabricates?
You said about Assange "He is a known fabricator of false information". What in particular are you thinking about thanks? NadVolum (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Slandering the memory of Seth Rich and claiming Russia was not involved in the hacking and release of the stolen emails, statements which everyone but Trump supporters knew were obvious falsehoods. He did what he could to get the promised pardon from Trump. He knew it was impossible for Rich to be involved and that Russia had to be the culprit. He is allied with Russia and pushes their agenda. He is untrustworthy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Have a read the last paragraph of the section Murder of Seth Rich#Beginnings on social media. Exactly how was he suppoosed to know Seth Rich was not involved and that Russia was the culprit? Not that he ever definitively said they were or weren't as the sources are anonymous and he very possibly didn't know. NadVolum (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- NV, interesting you would not be aware of incidents such as this when Assange has shown his true colors. NPOV suggests we all survey everything available in RS publications, and if you will do so, it might greatly change and enhance your efforts in various articles, particularly related to Assange and his activities. SPECIFICO talk 11:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Did you not read what that paragraph said? HOw was Assange supposed to know who qwas who if the GRU and others are involved in deception? Are you just assuming he worked wth the Russians to spread lies and from that assumption you come to the conclusion he worked with the russians to spread lies? Or have you got something you can actually point to? NadVolum (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- NV, interesting you would not be aware of incidents such as this when Assange has shown his true colors. NPOV suggests we all survey everything available in RS publications, and if you will do so, it might greatly change and enhance your efforts in various articles, particularly related to Assange and his activities. SPECIFICO talk 11:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Have a read the last paragraph of the section Murder of Seth Rich#Beginnings on social media. Exactly how was he suppoosed to know Seth Rich was not involved and that Russia was the culprit? Not that he ever definitively said they were or weren't as the sources are anonymous and he very possibly didn't know. NadVolum (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
NV, read the section "WikiLeaks statements". A dead man cannot continue to deliver info. Assange also knew he was dealing with Guccifer 2.0, already known to be a Russian source. Assange shares Putin's hatred of Clinton. He is a political activist who is far from neutral and will use unethical methods to serve his own purposes. He is clearly on the Russian side of the equation, just like Greenwald, Taibbi, and Trump supporters. They all support fascism and despise democracy. In April 2017, Trump-appointed CIA director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia".[1] I doubt Trump was happy with that statement, but Pompeo had the real information which Trump tried to suppress. Pompeo knew that Russia, not Ukraine, China, Iran, or the Clinton campaign, was behind the hacking of the DNC and influence campaign against Clinton and for him. He knew that Putin was his ally and supporter, and he liked that. Even without the kompromat, he would have sided with Putin over America. That's because he political ethics are tied to money, not patriotism. Never before has America had a stooge of its greatest enemy in the White House. OTOH, that there was more pressure on Assange made Trump's offer of a pardon in August 2017 more appealing to Assange. Trump is an expert at the carrot and stick game. He threatens and then offers favors for loyalty. That's one of his major tricks for compromising those around him: "You are in trouble and have a serious problem, and I can save you if you will be loyal to me."
Anyone who shares their hatred of Hillary Clinton is suspect because they have bought into the conspiracy theories against her. 95% of the negative stuff about her is false and has its root in the old lies spread about her and her husband. She was clearly the most qualified candidate for the presidency, and yet a significant minority of Americans (but not a majority of the voters) voted against her because they believed the Russian propaganda against her, and Assange is a major player in that endeavor. Putin hates her because she is so strongly for democracy and against fascism, knows Putin like the back of her hand, knows that he can never manipulate her because he doesn't have any serious kompromat against her, and he knows she would have been a strong defender of American interests. Trump failed on all counts. He was is still #PutinsPuppet. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I know Guccifer 2.0 never said they were the original source of the leaks. I know people assumed that but it is ridiculous given the number and nature of the different hacks. As the Hill said in the second citation in that article 'He might not even be a single person'. So of course Assange could well be able to still contact them. And as the bit I pointed at shows the russians were careful to try and make it look like the leaks happened in America. Why should Assange who has been the target of attacks by american intelligence consider the russian theory as the most probable? Considering that abut half of America voted for Trump and I doubt a high percentage are fellow travellers I don't think labelling them the way you do is appropriate. Assange might have tipped the balance but I don't think he made a great difference. I can remember talking a few months before the election to some saying I thought Trump was an egomaniac who was using them and didn't care if they lived or died and would just try and aggrandize himself. But they wouldn't have it and believed Hilary was a devil despite her credentials in caring for families. That's when I started thinking that perhaps Trump really did have a chance. NadVolum (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- NV, Guccifer 2.0 was a persona, a "front" for many Russian intelligence hackers, IOW a cutout used to transmit information. (It was all about plausible deniability. Trump isn't the only one good at that game. Putin knows how to play it.) Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be the original Guccifer, who is a famous living Romanian hacker. The Steele dossier sources said it was Romanian hackers (plural) paid by Trump and Putin, and controlled by Putin, so Steele's sources were partially right. Assange, who is no ordinary person, but one who has worked in the shadowy world of hacking and spies for many years, had to have known it was Russians behind the hacking and behind Guccifer 2.0, his source. That was public knowledge at the time. Many reliable sources were pinning the blame on Russia. He could just believe it, but he had to protect his source, so he implied it was an innocent dead young man who was his source, except that a dead person cannot keep supplying one with information after his death. So Assange's source had to be the hackers who stole the emails and documents from the DNC, and everyone knew they were Russian intelligence. That's HOW he could have known. If he didn't "know", then it was willful blindness. Assange is not getting a pass on this one. Trying to blame the DNC for hacking itself and doing all it could to undermine its own candidate is one of the weirdest and most illogical conspiracy theories ever concocted.
- "WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort." p. vii. (Read the rest of that page.) "The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort."
- Senate: WikiLeaks Knowingly Assisted Russian Influence Effort Before 2016 Election
- So Assange, WikiLeaks, and Trump knew it was Russians and still actively helped the Russians. That's collusion. Then Trump went even further to provide cover for the Russians by offering Assange a pardon if he would divert any blame from the Russians, and Assange did that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Can I point you to Hanlon's razor about attribting malice where stupidity explains everything quite adequately. Assange may not be any ordinary person, but there is no reason to assume he is any more intelligent than any of the other people in this business. Do you first of all acknowledge that the argument about that Assange was in contact with Guccifer 2.0 and therefore knew that Rich couldn't be the hacker is simply false and that you have now changed your grounds? And now above you have changed the Muller investigations result that he probably knew into that he knew? I guess you are talking about Dana Rohrabacher about the pardon. In that you're giving a third opinion different from that of Rohrabacher who said Trump never made any such offer and Assange who could not accept such an offer. As an illustration of stupidity I see that Rohrabacher said he still believed Rich was the source of the emails. NadVolum (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- You'd do much better to read the relevant sources before doubling down on this. They tell us Assange went out of his way to give the appearance that Mr. Rich was his source. Namechecking Hanlon is ironic, given your proclivity for personal disparagement of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- NV, there are several things to parse in what you wrote, so I want to be sure I understand you correctly.
- I agree that the question of how much Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia is subject to discussion. The question of "conspiracy" and "coordination" was partially answered by the Mueller Report (he was unable to prove it, largely because of obstruction of the investigation and destruction of evidence). That leaves questions about "collusion" and "cooperation", which were proven in spades. Whether that cooperation was witting or unwitting was also answered. Any failures to successfully collude were not for want of trying (bumbling attempts that were not always successful). Mueller deals with this question by explaining that he focused only on the first two and specifically did not focus on "collusion". Nevertheless, his investigation found myriad ways Trump and his campaign colluded, cooperated, aided and abetted, helped, covered up, lied about, and otherwise did all they could to help Russia's efforts to weaken America and help Trump win.
- You write: "Do you first of all acknowledge that the argument about that Assange was in contact with Guccifer 2.0 and therefore knew that Rich couldn't be the hacker is simply false and that you have now changed your grounds?" I don't think I have changed my grounds. Assange knew he was in contact with Guccifer 2.0. He also knew that Seth Rich was dead, yet implied that Rich was his source, not Russians.
- As to what he knew, are you talking about Assange or Trump? Regarding Trump, read the ending of the lead at Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.
- Rohrabacher's denial is deceptive. Assange's lawyers, in court, made it plain that Rohrabacher told them he had direct authorization from Trump to make the offer of a pardon. That's in the court record. Trump and Rohrabacher later tried to backtrack. You can never trust Trump or those around him. The only times they tell the truth are when they are no longer defending Trump. (To defend him requires lying.) Then they are allowed to tell the truth, such as when Cohen tells the truth about his dealings when Trump. We must not be naive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- So you think that an offer to Assange which he doesn't take up is evidence of something against Assange? And I fail to follow what you say about Assange talking to Guccifer 2.0 after Rich's death should have indicated that Rich was not the leaker of the emails. All it indicated was that Rich was not Guccifer 2.0. NadVolum (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now I'm really scratching my head. Assange did take up the offer. He did all he could to remove the blame from the Russians. Now please tell me you don't believe that Rich stole and leaked the emails, that the Russians were not behind the many hacks (starting in June 2015) and leaks, and that instead, the DNC did ALL OF THAT and ALL it could to hurt itself and wound its candidate so it could pin the blame on Russia and Trump, all to increase Hillary's chances to win, and even when it did cause her to lose some votes, she still won the most votes by a large margin. Please tell me you don't believe that. Pleeeeassssse!!??!! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
- So you think that an offer to Assange which he doesn't take up is evidence of something against Assange? And I fail to follow what you say about Assange talking to Guccifer 2.0 after Rich's death should have indicated that Rich was not the leaker of the emails. All it indicated was that Rich was not Guccifer 2.0. NadVolum (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Can I point you to Hanlon's razor about attribting malice where stupidity explains everything quite adequately. Assange may not be any ordinary person, but there is no reason to assume he is any more intelligent than any of the other people in this business. Do you first of all acknowledge that the argument about that Assange was in contact with Guccifer 2.0 and therefore knew that Rich couldn't be the hacker is simply false and that you have now changed your grounds? And now above you have changed the Muller investigations result that he probably knew into that he knew? I guess you are talking about Dana Rohrabacher about the pardon. In that you're giving a third opinion different from that of Rohrabacher who said Trump never made any such offer and Assange who could not accept such an offer. As an illustration of stupidity I see that Rohrabacher said he still believed Rich was the source of the emails. NadVolum (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
From Murder of Seth Rich#WikiLeaks statements:
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[2] Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[3] Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source, as they do with other leaks.[4]
According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14, which was four days after Seth Rich died.[5][6][7] In April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time already suspected of being linked to Russian intelligence.[8] BuzzFeed described the messages as "the starkest proof yet that Assange knew a likely Russian government hacker had the Democrat leaks he wanted. And they reveal the deliberate bad faith with which Assange fed the groundless claims that Rich was his source, even as he knew the documents' origin."[8] Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".[9]
- I don't believe Rich leaked anything. The whole business above though is based on Wikileaks receiving a cache of DNC leaks four days after Rich died from Guccifer 2.0. It is quite common for such caches to be delayed days or weeks or even more while they are inspected. Four days can be seen as either damming by people who want to see it that way, or confirming since it is so short after the death by those who want to see it another way. Other people seem to be assuming Guccifer 2.0 was Rich whereas they claimed to be Romanian - and the persona was seen as a front for releasing hacks or leaks from a number of people. I'm not privy to what went through Assange's mind about Seth Rich but he seems fairly paranoid - if that is the right term for someone for whom paranoia is pretty rational. For all I know he believed the conspiracy theories or the machiavellian you think, but he never actually said Rich was the source - presumably for the simple reason he had no way of knowing and the GRU aren't all that bad at covering up or feeding people with believable lies. I personally assume stupidity as a first guess. NadVolum (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have never heard anyone speculate that Seth Rich might have been Guccifer 2.0. That's a new one. Guccifer 2.0 was quite active before and very long after Rich's death, so the theory that Guccifer 2.0 might have been releasing stuff provided by Rich before his death just doesn't hold water. Read Guccifer 2.0#Timeline of Guccifer 2.0. There is zero evidence that Rich had anything to do with anything related to Trump-Russia. ZERO. It's all a very nasty conspiracy theory. Read Murder of Seth Rich. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well the statement that Assange contacted Guccifer 2.0 and got email data four days after Rich died was damming proof that Assange knew Rich was not the leaker would certainly be read by many if not most people as meaning that Assange was saying Rich and the leaker Guccifer 2.0 were the same person and he had just been shown up for lying. NadVolum (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your personal theories, which are quite at odds with RS reports and quite confused, are not worth discussing. It's pointless and you'll just get more and more frustrated. Our job is simply to convey what the weight of sources tell us. There's no question that the mainstream views the Assange/Rich thing as a rather shameful and revealing little misstep in Assange's descent from credibility. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well the statement that Assange contacted Guccifer 2.0 and got email data four days after Rich died was damming proof that Assange knew Rich was not the leaker would certainly be read by many if not most people as meaning that Assange was saying Rich and the leaker Guccifer 2.0 were the same person and he had just been shown up for lying. NadVolum (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Strobel, Warren; Hosenball, Mark (13 April 2017). "CIA chief calls WikiLeaks a 'hostile intelligence service'". Reuters.
- ^ Nieuwsuur (August 9, 2016). "Assange belooft nieuwe onthullingen over Clinton" (in Dutch). Nieuwsuur. Archived from the original on March 19, 2018. Retrieved March 18, 2018 – via YouTube.
- ^ Nieuwsuur (August 9, 2016). "Julian Assange on Seth Rich". Archived from the original on August 2, 2017. Retrieved August 2, 2017 – via YouTube.
- ^ Morton, Joseph (August 10, 2016). "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer". Omaha World-Herald. Archived from the original on August 22, 2017. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
- ^ Mueller Report Archived April 19, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, vol. I, p. 46: On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject "big archive" and the message "a new attempt."163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg."
- ^ Mueller, Robert S. "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 19, 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
- ^ Poulsen, Kevin (18 April 2019). "Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on April 19, 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
- ^ a b Collier, Kevin (April 5, 2018). "These Messages Show Julian Assange Talked About Seeking Hacked Files From Guccifer 2.0". BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on April 7, 2018. Retrieved April 7, 2018.
- ^ Mervosh, Sarah (20 April 2019). "Seth Rich Was Not Source of Leaked D.N.C. Emails, Mueller Report Confirms". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on April 20, 2019. Retrieved 24 April 2019.
Editorializing?
I saw your comment that tagged me and said I did improper editorializing. The reason I included that comment was because it was originally from the start of the quoted paragraph. Your diff My diff Source
Yet journalists are quick to defend anyone who uncovers and disseminates information, as long as it’s genuine, by whatever means and with whatever motives. Julian Assange is possibly a criminal. He certainly intervened in the 2016 election, allegedly with Russian help, to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. But top newspaper editors have insisted that what Assange does is protected by the First Amendment, and the Committee to Protect Journalists has protested the charges against him.
The connection seemed clear so I wanted to include it especially since other editors think Im antiAssange. I didnt know if you saw that part of the text and wanted to know if you still thought it was POV editorializing.
Im not here to argue I just want to understand and learn from my mistakes because I was trying here to do the NPOV thing and if I went too far or misunderstood I want to understand so Im just here to double check
Thank you anyway Softlemonades (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I just didn't think it was necessary to add editorial emphasis on top of what the quote already said. It seemed like overkill. Then the other editor included your comment in the quote, and that was just too much, so I nuked it. I never implied you had made that error. Now it's been revised. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- You were clear about the quote not being my fault and you included the diff for my edit, which made it very clear what I did. Thanks for that.
- And thanks for explaining here. I saw
omment was improper POV editorializing added by User:Softlemonades
and wanted to know if I was going way too far or misunderstood something and I trust your judgment even if we disagree Softlemonades (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)- It's a matter of opinion whether you went too far. It was the other editor who really did something egregious, not you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- That depends on whether you think the sense is more important that the exact copying of a selection of the words. I responded to your 'We can never assume that Assange is telling the truth. He is a known fabricator of false information and political operative who pushes his own agenda' which seemed to miss the whole point of what was said. I then realized an exact quote was needed and was fixing that up when you reverted. As you saw I chopped out the middle to include the relevant bit rarher than having a big quote. I did not consider what SoftLemonades has put in now as saying anything much more, the citation don't actually say they believe he is a criminal nor that he knowingly used information from russia and the sentence removed says they don't particularly care because the information is genuine. I'm not going to change what's there now but I don't think the change actually reflects their view in their support for him properly. NadVolum (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- As far as Assange knowing he was helping Russians, see the section above. He and Trump both knew and continued to knowingly help the Russians. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what the Mueller report said about Trump or Assange and if anything was going to try and say it that was. NadVolum (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mueller is more complicated than that, and the Senate report that said
WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort
[35] Softlemonades (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mueller is more complicated than that, and the Senate report that said
- That's not what the Mueller report said about Trump or Assange and if anything was going to try and say it that was. NadVolum (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- As far as Assange knowing he was helping Russians, see the section above. He and Trump both knew and continued to knowingly help the Russians. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- That depends on whether you think the sense is more important that the exact copying of a selection of the words. I responded to your 'We can never assume that Assange is telling the truth. He is a known fabricator of false information and political operative who pushes his own agenda' which seemed to miss the whole point of what was said. I then realized an exact quote was needed and was fixing that up when you reverted. As you saw I chopped out the middle to include the relevant bit rarher than having a big quote. I did not consider what SoftLemonades has put in now as saying anything much more, the citation don't actually say they believe he is a criminal nor that he knowingly used information from russia and the sentence removed says they don't particularly care because the information is genuine. I'm not going to change what's there now but I don't think the change actually reflects their view in their support for him properly. NadVolum (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's a matter of opinion whether you went too far. It was the other editor who really did something egregious, not you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Mueller's investigation was an aborted, crippled, and bungled attempt to deal with an issue made impossible by Trump's corruption of the justice department, intelligence agencies, and his open obstruction of all investigations. The Senate Intelligence Committee went further and made some stronger conclusions. See Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- And you think they got more information than Mueller? Trump talking to Wikileaks via Stone! that's a good one. Have a look at the Jerome Corsi article to see how that got on! NadVolum (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you know something that we don't? Please provide the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I thought the article showed that much of the contact was a sham put on by Stone. But I'm not going to argue the point, there undoubtedly was some contact between Wikileaks and some people in Trump's camp. And anyway you've answered my query about why you thought Assange fabricated things thanks. NadVolum (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you know something that we don't? Please provide the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- And you think they got more information than Mueller? Trump talking to Wikileaks via Stone! that's a good one. Have a look at the Jerome Corsi article to see how that got on! NadVolum (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Advice to a newbie
Just saving this here...
Ask yourself a few questions:
- Did I ever criticize the POV of an article?
- Did I ever criticize the political POV of a source?
- Did I ever criticize other editors?
Those are all dangerous things for any newbie to do. Start by assuming good faith that articles are written by editors who use good sources to write good content. If you disagree with any of those things, then assume you are on the wrong side of history, do not understand the issues, do not know how to vet sources for reliability, have been getting my info from bad sources, and don't know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough to do much more than completely neutral and minor copy editing yet. Start by assuming you are likely wrong and then seek clarification from other editors without arguing with them. Believe their explanations because they are likely correct. Seriously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Exact ages
FYI: You mentioned in BLPN about not having exact ages. This report notes DOBs, however, it would not be acceptable for use as there is no clue who uploaded it. Still, I don't have any reason to doubt its authenticity. -Location (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Location, thanks for this. If I understand that arrest report (1-28-2004) correctly, only one of the girls was a minor (b. 9-2-1987). The other was born on 10-11-1983.
- Lauren, his girlfriend, was a minor at the time (b. 12-16-1986), and had Tyler, her first son, on March 21, 2005, when she was 18. She and Jayson married in 2007. I agree we can't use this as a source.
- This RS closely follows details in the police report. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
- Great find. A 1/28/1987 DOB would make her 16 at the time of the arrest, so it seems "teen" was right. Also, jeez, those witness reports were distressing to read. But I'll keep my thoughts on Mr. Jayson Boebert to myself.BTW, Valjean, that quote by you at the top of this page is pretty rad. Matches my feelings exactly. DFlhb (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Which quote?
- BTW, I hope you notice that I am not edit warring about this business. I think the process is proceeding as it should, and I'm perfectly content to bow to consensus. Thanks for your efforts. You're a good-faith editor, so keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." Matches my experience — DFlhb (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an important thing. We all come from various backgrounds, read different sources, have our own biases, etc. That automatically means we tend to provide the information we know of, so it's the responsibility of others who read other sources to provide the balancing POV. Wikipedia is based on the idea that no one knows everything, but everyone knows something others may not know. When we act collaboratively with good faith, wonderful things happen. Great content is the result. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- re: your edit: I do notice, and I appreciate you; not just for that page but all the other pages where we've met. I started editing Wikipedia just last September, and in that time, the only editors that truly frustrated me were those who had zero clue (CIR). I've already been in half a dozen content disputes where after the dispute, the other editor remained not just polite, but actually kind. In real life, that's utterly mundane, but on the internet, I wouldn't have expected it in my wildest dreams, and it's been humbling, in a wholesome way. Wikipedia's pretty neat, and I'm grateful for editors like you. Also very much enjoyed reading what's below. I think you and my dad would have gotten along quite well, since he had a pretty wild childhood too. Have an awesome Sunday, — DFlhb (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." Matches my experience — DFlhb (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This whole Lauren and Jayson Boebert romance reminds me of my young days. My first serious girlfriend was 16 when I was 18. The age of consent was 16. She was far beyond me in experience, and she wrapped me around her finger. She came to my parties and enjoyed the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll, etc. She set her sights on me and proceeded to seduce me, dropping her boyfriend in the process. She caught me totally off guard. I was really naive. She got drunk and told her boyfriend to just go home and she would have me drive her home when she was more sober. Once out the door, she plied her tradecraft expertly. This was already after an afternoon where some of us went skinny dipping in a neighbor's pool. She was already pretty handsy under the water then. That late evening turned romantic, sexy, and then a bit tragic, as after midnight she got strong stomach pains, then passed a black mass. We saved it and drove to the ER. It was what was left after an abortion. As I said, she was much more experienced. We were together for a year, then she left me for a guy with a massively huge dick. We had been playing strip poker on my waterbed and she got an eye for him. Later, after a botched marriage and a child, she stopped me on the street and apologized and said she had given up a good thing. That was nice of her. Life was interesting, to say the least. She was a real wild child.
Here are some of the songs that remind me most of those days: "Summer of '69"[36], "A Whiter Shade of Pale"[37], "Hotel California"[38], "Comfortably Numb"[39], "All Along the Watchtower"[40], "Born to Be Wild"[41], "Black Magic Woman"[42], "Soul Kitchen"[43], "Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress"[44], "Season of the Witch"[45], "Mellow Yellow"[46] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Why did you do this?
Hm?. --Jayron32 17:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Was it wrong to reactivate your close? I was under the impression I was undoing an irresponsible or vandalistic thing by some opposer of your close, but maybe I was wrong. If you really rescind your close, feel free to undo my edit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I really did. Did you not read my note? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh! I missed that. Sorry. On what basis? SNOW closes are allowed without waiting a long time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- On the basis of "a bunch of people asked me to".
- Also, can you self-revert yourself. I can't undo your revert of my close, because that would be WP:WHEELWARing, and I'd rather not have my admin tools removed today. Thanks. --Jayron32 17:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Done, although I disagree. An early close is standard practice and fully justified in a SNOW situation, as this clearly was. Those arguing to rescind your close use bogus arguments. I really thought some vandal had come by and undone your close. I thought "How dare they? Jayron32 is in my pantheon of highly-respected admins, and it's just wrong for anyone to do this! I'll undo this vandalism." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, but people asked, in good faith, that I undo myself, and I saw no reason to not oblige them. WP:NORUSH and all that. If the consensus I read when I closed it still exists in 26 more days or so, then it will be closed then with the same effect. No big whoop. --Jayron32 18:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, but once again Fox, like Trump, is treated differently than all other sources. They get a free pass, preferential treatment, and an exemption to the normal rules. We routinely and quickly have blacklisted and deprecated many sources for far less serious issues than those that plague Fox News. This Fox exemption is like the Trump exemption, a demonstration that the normal rules do not apply to them. Even RS does not apply to them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, I don't have a horse in the race. You're bringing up opinions to explain how you voted in the discussion. That's fine and good, but I haven't given any opinions, and don't intend to, nor was I using any opinions I may have on Fox News to influence how to read the consensus. That's an inappropriate way to close a discussion. When I (or anyone else) closes a discussion, they put aside any personal knowledge or opinions they have, read the consensus, and close the discussion summarizing the consensus. Once you start getting into the merits of the proposal itself, that's where it's a problem. --Jayron32 12:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, but once again Fox, like Trump, is treated differently than all other sources. They get a free pass, preferential treatment, and an exemption to the normal rules. We routinely and quickly have blacklisted and deprecated many sources for far less serious issues than those that plague Fox News. This Fox exemption is like the Trump exemption, a demonstration that the normal rules do not apply to them. Even RS does not apply to them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, but people asked, in good faith, that I undo myself, and I saw no reason to not oblige them. WP:NORUSH and all that. If the consensus I read when I closed it still exists in 26 more days or so, then it will be closed then with the same effect. No big whoop. --Jayron32 18:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh! I missed that. Sorry. On what basis? SNOW closes are allowed without waiting a long time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I really did. Did you not read my note? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Jayron32, I agree that personal preferences and political opinions should not factor into a close, and you do it right. My complaint is with the general history of how we have treated Fox News. We treat Fox and Trump differently, preferentially, much better than other sources, and that's contrary to policy. We shouldn't play favorites. We should not make exceptions for bad behavior and allow sites like Fox to get away with it because they are so popular, as clearly expressed in this excellent analysis:
- "For absolutely any other source, it would've been considered generally unreliable or deprecated years ago. The only reason it hasn't been is because it's extremely popular, and we're all afraid that the huge number of people who watch Fox News will add Wikipedia to the list of "liberal media" -- that catch-all group of publications which include liberal perspectives alongside any outfit that doesn't prioritize catering to or cultivating conservative beliefs. At the end of the day, we don't want to alienate anyone; we want people who hear news about election fraud from Fox, etc. to come to Wikipedia and read our articles about election fraud. Maybe even follow the links and read some material they wouldn't otherwise consume. Fox's only value to this project is the extreme loyalty and trust so many people put in it. It is not valuable as a source of information on politics or just about anything, but like a Boob Tube Demagogue, we can bet that it won't hesitate to stoke outrage among its viewers with a bunch of "Wokepedia" stories. That's the main reason I've opposed multiple past efforts to downgrade Fox -- it's just a cost-benefit analysis predicated on the fact that we already don't really permit Fox to be used for politics for all of the reasons above."
The phrases "That's the main reason I've opposed multiple past efforts to downgrade Fox" and "cost-benefit analysis" really horrify me. If those are really the reasons for some editors to !vote as they have, then we have a problem, because, just like with NPOV (editors' opinions should not be added to the content we create), editorial favoritism and opinion is given primacy over how we should neutrally apply policy, and Fox and Trump have been given preferential treatment.
In a discussion of the Trump exemption with an editor who consistently defends Trump and Fox in an improper manner, I mention how they apply IAR for Trump: "You are the one who linked to IAR in your rely. WP:Common sense redirects to IAR. Maybe you didn't realize that? You should nominate that redirect for deletion as well, because it is not common sense to IAR in relation to Trump. Your use creates an exemption for him not given to others."
My point is that we have always IAR in relation to Teflon Don Trump and Fox News, and I see that as problematic. It's time that stopped, and in this latest RfC, I see that a couple editors who normally protect Fox News have actually moved, but some of the usual suspects do not. There is literally nothing Fox can do wrong which will move them. Look at the editing patterns of those who defend Fox in the RfC. You will see extreme protectionism of Fox and Trump, a type of protectionism that causes them to ride roughshod over multiple PAG, create disruption, and block progress in the same topic areas usually lied about by Fox and Trump.
We need to create a policy or guideline that deals with protectionism as violations of NOTCENSORED, NPOV, and PUBLIGFIGURE. PAG and RS take primacy over editors' personal opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, okay I guess? It's still not relevant to the matter at hand, as far as my involvement in it. There was a discussion, I closed it in good faith. Others made reasonable objections, so I reopened the discussion. That's really the end of the matter, and your long analyses of Fox News and discussions thereof at Wikipedia could be true, and also have no bearing at all on what has happened so far, and what could still happen with the current discussion. Basically, "yes, but so what". The current discussion will be closed at some unspecified point in the future, likely by someone not me (since I botched it once already. I may screw up a LOT of things once, I never screw them up twice), and they will assess the consensus at that point in the future. Off the record, I expect the next 30 days to feature only a small handful of new comments (probably not more than 4-5 , and maybe not even that many) and the end result will be that the next person to assess the consensus will have basically no more extra information than I did, and we'll have basically wasted the extra month on nothing. But, then, the extra time wasted only justifies my initial close all that much more. So let the objectors have their extra month of silence. It's kinda fun to watch. And you know what, if I am wrong about that, and there's a tidal wave of hundreds of additional opinions that come in, then I was wrong to have closed it in the first place. Either way, nothing is lost. Either I'm entertained because I get to feel smug and self-righteous for a month, OR I was wrong to have closed it, and a mistake would have been corrected. I call that a win-win situation. --15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to this but I bet you do
When did the existence of Crossfire Hurricane first become publicly known? In 2017, right? I think this should be noted in the article. soibangla (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it should. It's a notable lapse. I don't recall the exact first time it became public. It might be mentioned in one of the timeline lists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Please see" template
A cool template:
{{subst:Please see|link}}
Discussion at link
You are invited to join the discussion at link. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Durham report nothingburger
Look at the vain attempts at spinning this [47] Andre🚐 00:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty sad. It changes nothing regarding the findings of myriad secretive contacts with actual Russian agents and how the Trump campaign invited, welcomed, cooperated, aided and abetted, lied about, facilitated, encouraged, did not prevent interference, and tried to prevent U.S. intelligence from doing its job because Trump "expected to benefit" from Russian interference. Sounds like collusion to me.
- Durham focused on two things that had little effect on the evidence for Russian election interference and how Trump benefited from Putin putting him in power. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
| WP:NOTFORUM |
|---|
| SPA, NOTFORUM SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
Propaganda in China / Censorship of Wikipedia
I noticed that the below (the reference links are included on the articles) keeps getting removed from Propaganda in China and Censorship of Wikipedia. Any thoughts?
- Despite being censored in mainland China, and as VPNs are normally not allowed to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia administrators from China have permitted IP block exemptions for a select number of mainland users. Such users are recruited to change the editorial content on Wikipedia in support of China's viewpoint and/or to support the election of pro-Chinese government administrators on Wikipedia, with the aim of gaining control of Wikipedia. Academics suggested that “China urgently needs to encourage and train Chinese netizens to become Wikipedia platform opinion leaders and administrators … [who] can adhere to socialist values and form some core editorial teams.”
- The pro-Beijing Wikipedia community, the Wikimedians of Mainland China (WMC), have clashed with Wikipedia editors from Taiwan, not only over Wikipedia's content, but also making death threats made against Taiwan's community of Wikipedians. One Taiwanese editor suggested that it was not just patriotic mainlanders, but a "larger structural coordinated strategy the government has to manipulate these platforms" beside Wikipedia, such as Twitter and Facebook. The Wikimedians of Mainland China (WMC) also threatened to report Wikipedia editors to Hong Kong's national security police hotline over the disputed article "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests" characterized by edit warring. A Hong Kong-based editor, who remains anonymous because of fears of intimidation, noted that "Pro-Beijing people often remove content that is sympathetic to protests, such as tear gas being fired and images of barricades. They also add their own content". Acknowledging that "edit wars" happen on both sides, the anonymous editor stated that "Pro-democracy editors tend to add content to shift the balance or the tone of the article, but in my experience, the pro-Beijing editors are a lot more aggressive in churning out disinformation. It's now unfixable without external interference. Someone is trying to rewrite history."
- On 13 September 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation banned seven Wikipedia users and removed administrator privileges from twelve users that were part of Wikimedians of Mainland China (WMC). Maggie Dennis, the foundation's vice present of community resilience and sustainability, said that there had been an yearlong investigation into “infiltration concerns” that threatened the "very foundations of Wikipedia". Dennis observed that the infiltrators had tried to promote "the aims of China, as interpreted through whatever filters they may bring to bear", suggesting possible links to the Chinese Communist Party. Dennis said “We needed to act based on credible information that some members (not all) of that group [WMC] have harassed, intimidated, and threatened other members of our community, including in some cases physically harming others, in order to secure their own power and subvert the collaborative nature of our projects”.
HertzUranus (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not involved in that topic at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump page
Hi Valjean, you recently added two adjectives, myriad and suspicious, to the Donald Trump page, with three cites supporting those two words, a total of over 900 bytes for two additional words. We still have the size problem, and, considering the various ongoing investigations and lawsuits, it’s going to get bigger. (The Guardian article on Steele is dated and would probably be less positive now.) The first paragraph of the section says that CIA, FBI, and NSA were investigating the links — that says "suspicious" in big neon letters. And "myriad" is a bit too hyperbolic. We have two RS supporting our sentence that the links between Trump associates and Russia were widely reported in 2017. That the Durham investigation would face-plant was to be expected. IMO, it doesn’t add to or contradict anything that we mention at Donald Trump. I’ll get around to looking at Russia_investigation_origins_counter-narrative#Durham_investigation and Durham special counsel investigation - the walls of text in that one are a big job, so I’ve been putting it off. Long story short - would you consider removing "myriad suspicious" and the three sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- How about "many suspicious" without the sources? That's certainly accurate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I got interrupted when I was half-way through the following comment, so I'm adding it now.
- I have to agree with the other editor that it's a bit op-edish but if you think it's necessary I can live with it. I think "Once discovered" can be rmeoved, as well. It's kind of duh - couldn't have reported an unknown unknown (don't know why I'm suddenly chaneling Rumsfeld). According to the NYT, Special Counsel Smith is now looking into Trump’s "business dealings in foreign countries since he took office", and E. Jean Carroll isn't done suing Trump, so we should be saving as much space as possible for current events.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Is my edit now good enough? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just had a look at Donald Trump - great! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! I just showed up here because @Valjean referenced their user talk page in their edit summary. Yeah, I'd still say that the "suspicious" line is a bit overkill (and something of a OP-ED/MOS:LABEL issue)—I've worked on a few articles involving criminal trials, and I can't imagine seeing a line like "a number of [the defendant's] actions were suspicious" and thinking "oh that's fine". But I don't find it terrible, so if you feel quite strongly about it, I'm okay with it.
- I am a bit apprehensive about keeping it in there without a source. (I know you removed the prior sources per Space's request, though even that source was a bit imperfect for saying "suspicious" in Wikipedia's voice—it said "sources in the US and the UK found that the contacts between Trump associates and Russians 'formed a suspicious pattern'").
- I'd like to hear more from @Space4Time3Continuum2x on this, and if Space has no more concerns, I'll drop it, but my thought is that anyone reviewing the article is going to see the term "suspicious" and have alarm bells go off—precisely because it's the type of word that triggers alarm bells when made in Wikipedia's voice. So, they'll check the source at the end of the sentence ... and find that the source doesn't support that claim. I know it might be a long time before the Trump page is stable enough to pass a GA review, but if I were reviewing the article and saw that word used—particularly without a source to support it—I'd count that against the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Is my edit now good enough? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The ominous atmosphere writ large
Just looking at my watchlist ([48], [49]) and seeing what is happening as hard right extremists take over Twitter and other sites in real time (I met Jack Dorsey when he first started the site, he's not a right wing extremist, but Musk, who knows?), and watching the latest Nazi attack on the White House, and wondering about the 60,000 pounds of missing explosives. Does it seem to you (as it does to me) that things are building to a crescendo here in the states? Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not good. Extremist views were mainstreamed by Trump, the Russian/Trump effort to divide this country and pit people against each other, and the ignorance of Nazis and Russia as enemies (I'm old enough to understand why) of democracy and America is indeed worrying. Often one can say it will get worse before it gets better, but I don't see any "better" coming down the road. The damage done is too great and lunacy is now mainstream. We'll see more homegrown extremists, Christian radicals, white nationalists, and Trump/Putin allies carry out more acts of violence and mass shootings. This is no time to weaken the FBI or CIA, yet we have Congress critters who want to do just that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Viriditas, Trump and his supporters keep telling us who they really are. Violence? Heck yes! Immorality? Yes, let him grab ME by the pussy! The Constitution? Only if it helps me and screws anyone who doesn't like Trump. If the Constitution is in Trump's way, they trash it, just like he does. Nazis and KKK? Good people. It's all so far out that many don't take them seriously, but every time they are given a chance to demonstrate their real intentions, they really go there, no matter how despicable a place it is. Here's pro-Trump podcaster Jesse Kelly:
Let me tell you all an uncomfortable truth: This country needs a dictator,” Kelly tweeted to his nearly 640,000 followers. “As the great John Adams said, a free country only works for a ‘moral people.’ We are not worthy of freedom. A dictator is coming.”
One Twitter user responded, “Weimar problems eventually lead to Weimar solutions,” referencing Germany’s Weimar Republic, that historians say created conditions that led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Kelly responded simply, “There it is.”[50]
There is literally no place they will not follow Trump. When one thinks he's hit the absolute bottom of the barrel, the lowest common denominator for human foolishness and deception, he just blasts a hole in it and aims for the center of the earth. He defined the standard he wanted of his followers. They should be willing to not change their vote and to keep following him, even if he murdered someone on 5th Avenue. He wanted people with no moral compass, no scruples, no common decency, and he's created them. After that message from him, anyone who didn't abandon him then has no standing in decent society. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're completely misunderstanding them. Conservatives in general think they have a strong moral compass and that people like you are wishy washy and compromise on fundamental principles. For someone like that yes Trump has problems but he has stood against abortion. For someone like that their neighbours and family are who are important to them not someone in another state. They will stand up for and believe someone they know not someone in Washington. The poor in some city are not their problem and Mexicans are aliens. They will give generously to help their neighbour but not to give medical aid to someone distant - they think they should look after themselves like they do and are morally bankrupt because they haven't. Trump addresses their issues, his problems are elsewhere. NadVolum (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, been there, done that. I was raised a Reagan Republican in a fanatical, conservative, anti liberal, anti left-wing, very religious, Christian, home.
- Fortunately, we belived in the Constitution, were pacifists, believed in honesty, morality, freedom of and from religion, allowing others full freedom, as long as it didn't impinge on the noses of other people, and that everyone, especially the poor, minorities, and disenfranchised, deserved love, tolerance, and acceptance.
- We believed that the biblical "fruits of the spirit" were good, and people like Trump embody the very opposite and are a danger to society because they will use deceit and force to get their way and persecute others. We are now seeing the rise of fascism in America, with strong forces determined to create a violent civil war, and Trump appeals to those people. Not good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm gobsmacked that Sinclair Lewis was writing about this in 1935 (It Can't Happen Here), and yet in 88 years, the psychology of America hasn't made much progress. That's almost four generations living under the same existential threats as their ancestors. Something is wrong with this picture. If Philip K. Dick was still around, he would say "the Empire never ended". Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am an American who has lived in Europe for much of my adult life, and I am often shocked at the political naivete of Americans. They are generally less educated and informed than Europeans. They are often clueless about what a privilege they are born with to live in a constitutional republican democracy with so much freedom. They squander their potential. They should know better than to be so easily fooled by Putin's Puppet. He exploits their ignorance to his own ends. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6 NKJV)
- Europeans know that education is the most important foundation of any enlightened society, so they treat education and health care as human rights and make them easily accessible to everyone within their borders without a doctor's bill or tuition fee. They, as societies, consider these things so important that they are willing to pay higher taxes to fund easy access to everyone. It's also cheaper for the individual to get their health care and education this way than to pay for private health insurance or pay tuition. That leaves them with more money in their hands for other expenses. When they speak of oppression and crushing poverty, they call it "American conditions". They look to America as a theoretically ideal society that sadly does not police its own politicians and super-wealthy oppressors. They see Americans as the victims of their own ignorance and apathy, with a huge class of poor and uninformed Americans where these conditions should not be a problem. SMH! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm gobsmacked that Sinclair Lewis was writing about this in 1935 (It Can't Happen Here), and yet in 88 years, the psychology of America hasn't made much progress. That's almost four generations living under the same existential threats as their ancestors. Something is wrong with this picture. If Philip K. Dick was still around, he would say "the Empire never ended". Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Years ago, when I was doing research on the counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the counterculture specific to the US, I came across some archival material (which I cannot recall) which suggested that this time in history was a turning point in education for the country, as a decision was made by conservative political leaders to restrict education to only those who could afford it, thereby reinforcing the status quo and preventing any recrudescence of the student protests and rebellion that they attributed to mass education of the general public post-WWII. In other words, there was a lingering belief that the mass education of American youth during this time led to mass protests demanding social change, which gets at your point above. The powers that be figured this out and began to clamp down on access to education rather than implement social democracy or any kind of reform. Subsequently, higher education was no longer cheap or free and began to increase in price. At least, that's the general theory behind the current state of affairs. More recently, particularly in the post-9/11 era, we've seen an even further restriction of education in the states, this time the overall denigration and defunding of the humanities in favor of STEM fields which primarily support the business and finance sector as foot soldiers of free enterprise. It's not a coincidence that many of the most conservative, anti-democratic Trump supporters in the US are also members of the highest echelons of advanced engineering. STEM without humanities is a pathway to turnkey, technocratic fascism. These are also the same people preaching the wonders of techno-utopian AI adoption that will replace most jobs, while at the same time opposing UBI at the highest political levels. Sadly, education is the least of our problems in the US now, as we are veering towards full inverted totalitarianism at this point. I debate with Trump supporters every day, and there's no kind of education that would ever fix this wipe open chasm. They have a thirsty lust for blood that cannot be fulfilled through ideas alone. They are beyond any kind of education at this point. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wow you've certainly got it in for science and engineering! I think you're just describing basic conservative values. There's lots of billionaires who are on the opposite side as well. Unfortunately there's a lot in the middle too who just like to hold onto money and see the economy as a zero sum game and the conservative mindset fits in with what they want. Together they fund these 'think tanks' to get people to believe anything that is in their funders' financial interest. NadVolum (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t have it in for science and engineering. I’m referring to the political thesis put forward by Gambetta & Hertog 2016 that could have implications for the US. "The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.”[51] Viriditas (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well it certainly sounded to me like you do. I haven't read the book but it seems to me that they are trying to fit engineers into a left-right wing spectrum - whereas their training and aims go in another direction towards resolute pragmatism with a willingness to learn. If things are very bad they want to fix them - and yes I'm afraid pragmatism can involve violence, right or left wing values will be given consideration but the main aim is to make things work. I'm afraid ethics in engineering normally only covers things like honesty and communication and integrity and not liberty, equality and fraternity. If you can clearly say what is wrong and needs fixing, and better yet some measure of success, then you'll have engineers on your side. NadVolum (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- One would have to be a self-declared Luddite to be against science and engineering, as it forms the fundamental backbone of modernity and points us towards the future. Per this discussion, the thesis that I am demonstrating is as follows: the US has a problem with right wing political violence and extremism, not left wing; access to education has certainly exacerbated the problem, but the disconnect between a liberal arts education and STEM may also inform the divide; Gambetta & Hertzog (2016) illustrate this problem, showing that "engineers among [extremist] U.S. right-wing groups seem strongly overrepresented". In their example, 31% of the extremists in their small US sample have engineering degrees compared to just under 12% of the population. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well it certainly sounded to me like you do. I haven't read the book but it seems to me that they are trying to fit engineers into a left-right wing spectrum - whereas their training and aims go in another direction towards resolute pragmatism with a willingness to learn. If things are very bad they want to fix them - and yes I'm afraid pragmatism can involve violence, right or left wing values will be given consideration but the main aim is to make things work. I'm afraid ethics in engineering normally only covers things like honesty and communication and integrity and not liberty, equality and fraternity. If you can clearly say what is wrong and needs fixing, and better yet some measure of success, then you'll have engineers on your side. NadVolum (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t have it in for science and engineering. I’m referring to the political thesis put forward by Gambetta & Hertog 2016 that could have implications for the US. "The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.”[51] Viriditas (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
You also get things like Why Does the Tech Workforce Lean Left?. They're both seeing things from their own perspective of a left-right spectrum. NadVolum (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- That’s an entirely separate argument. I’m discussing the participation of engineers in extremist right wing movements. While the modern tech workforce leans left, consumers are very much the product, and that approach runs counter to progressivism and social progress in general. This has all sorts of ramifications and inclinations, such as the loss of privacy, algorithic bias, the manipulation of ideas and behavior, and the blurry lines between the corporate and government sphere. These arguments are not directly related to my discussion, but tangentially have influence, such as the alleged radicalization of social media users. There are many authors who discuss this, and do in fact blame leftist elites for the rise of the populist right through their inaction at the bureaucratic level. One of the most discussed issues in this regard was the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US, which the Democratic Party was unable to do anything about, and likely made worse with the passage of NAFTA (which over time contributed to the rise of right wing populism, along with the usual Koch-financed suspects). Totally different set of arguments. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am learning a lot from this discussion! New thoughts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think NAFTA with the side bits about labour and the environment was a well thought out agreeement. America has a bit of a schizophrenic attitude to it but I'm glad to see the successor is fairly reasonable too, and frankly I was surprised they were able to do that under Trump instead of messing everything up. NadVolum (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- See Hakobyan & McLaren 2016. It seems many people (including yourself) are unaware of it. There's another source (that I've misplaced at the moment and cannot find) that shows that US leaders had been warned since at least 1992 (possibly earlier) that NAFTA would hurt blue collar workers. This is what Hakobyan & McLaren show. The numbers are unclear on how many US jobs were lost, with low estimates of around 60,000 to higher ones of about 2.5 million. This also formed the basis of Ross Perot's criticism at the time before it was passed by Clinton. Still, another source (can't recall the name right now), shows that this impact on blue collar workers led to deep resentment towards US institutions and contributed to the rise of Trump and the fomentation of right wing domestic violence. Looking at the news indexes, the status quo of defending the legacy of NAFTA was in high swing up until 2013, when it seems to have dried up, with people like Steven Rattner finally challenging Gary Hufbauer and the Peterson Institute who had been defending it without evidence for so many years. Rattner notes at least half a million jobs moved to Mexico from the US due to NAFTA; the consensus on globalization has rapidly shifted in recent years, from treating it as an overwhelming success before the Great Recession, to now looking at it as a massive failure and misstep. Given that the Democrats have moved so far to the right in the intervening years (and Republicans are on the precipice of outright fascism), there is no legitimate political movement that truly represents the interests of working Americans that can successful challenge the future of trade which benefits American workers from the perspective of a stakeholder. Further, Gilens & Page 2014 famously showed that US representatives no longer vote on behalf of their constituents but rather for their donors, who are elite business interests. Other researchers have shown that by and large, the average US rep is far more conservative than the district they represent (given what Gilens & Page found). The general consensus from the working class is that both parties in the US have been captured by the dominant corporatocracy, which has diminished democracy and democratic institutions in favor of hyper-capitalism and free market fundamentalism. From this POV, NAFTA was not only a failure, but directly undermined the stability, the security, and the integrity of the US. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is what I mean about schizophrenic. Or just want everything and think they've been hardly done by if they give anything away when making a deal. Do you want less people coming in from Mexico? Do you want America to have a large market it can sell into? You do realize China isn't part of the free-trade area and it was wiping the floor with America anyway? I'm afraid people around the world are already looking to become more insular because of the bully boy tactics of China and America, insular as well as a bully boy is how China and America will be seen in future and it will do them no good at all. NadVolum (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the solution is global governance and binding international law, which raises wages for everyone, preserves the environment in every country, and provides a roadmap to peace, security, and global stability. Conservatives everywhere are adamantly against this because it tends to lower their profits, spreads the wealth around and diminishes inequality, and gives workers stakeholder status which limits the power of shareholders. That’s the problem in a nutshell. This is why the right wing is inherently anti-democratic at its very core. The secondary problem, is that so-called liberals, neoliberals, and Democrats have sided with the right on this topic, which means the US basically has a one-party system when it comes to labor and trade. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is what I mean about schizophrenic. Or just want everything and think they've been hardly done by if they give anything away when making a deal. Do you want less people coming in from Mexico? Do you want America to have a large market it can sell into? You do realize China isn't part of the free-trade area and it was wiping the floor with America anyway? I'm afraid people around the world are already looking to become more insular because of the bully boy tactics of China and America, insular as well as a bully boy is how China and America will be seen in future and it will do them no good at all. NadVolum (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- See Hakobyan & McLaren 2016. It seems many people (including yourself) are unaware of it. There's another source (that I've misplaced at the moment and cannot find) that shows that US leaders had been warned since at least 1992 (possibly earlier) that NAFTA would hurt blue collar workers. This is what Hakobyan & McLaren show. The numbers are unclear on how many US jobs were lost, with low estimates of around 60,000 to higher ones of about 2.5 million. This also formed the basis of Ross Perot's criticism at the time before it was passed by Clinton. Still, another source (can't recall the name right now), shows that this impact on blue collar workers led to deep resentment towards US institutions and contributed to the rise of Trump and the fomentation of right wing domestic violence. Looking at the news indexes, the status quo of defending the legacy of NAFTA was in high swing up until 2013, when it seems to have dried up, with people like Steven Rattner finally challenging Gary Hufbauer and the Peterson Institute who had been defending it without evidence for so many years. Rattner notes at least half a million jobs moved to Mexico from the US due to NAFTA; the consensus on globalization has rapidly shifted in recent years, from treating it as an overwhelming success before the Great Recession, to now looking at it as a massive failure and misstep. Given that the Democrats have moved so far to the right in the intervening years (and Republicans are on the precipice of outright fascism), there is no legitimate political movement that truly represents the interests of working Americans that can successful challenge the future of trade which benefits American workers from the perspective of a stakeholder. Further, Gilens & Page 2014 famously showed that US representatives no longer vote on behalf of their constituents but rather for their donors, who are elite business interests. Other researchers have shown that by and large, the average US rep is far more conservative than the district they represent (given what Gilens & Page found). The general consensus from the working class is that both parties in the US have been captured by the dominant corporatocracy, which has diminished democracy and democratic institutions in favor of hyper-capitalism and free market fundamentalism. From this POV, NAFTA was not only a failure, but directly undermined the stability, the security, and the integrity of the US. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
That was odd
With Floozy Official blocked now, that seems a relief. An odd occurence indeed. I'm slightly concerned about them saying [...] if the past few months have proven anything... nevermind.
: do you think they may have been a sockpuppet then, as their account was created yesterday? That may explain the odd behaviour. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Very likely, and the threat to return will likely be as a sock. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Parsing
| This is currently paused as it may be based on some wrong information. Seeking clarity now. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
From Talk:Durham special counsel investigation#First sentence Let's try to parse this issue raised by DonFB:
Elements to compare and parse:
I'm going to venture that DonFB means "Clinesmith's case" when he writes "this case". So is Clinesmith's case "related to the origins of the FBI investigation"? Let's look at the facts. We're dealing with the "investigation (1) into the investigators (2)", so we end up easily conflating the two investigations. That creates confusion. Are we talking about 1 or 2? 1=Durham and 2=CFH. Chronologically, 2 comes before 1. If you're not confused yet, then kudos to you! Clinesmith can only be related to 1=Durham, as 2=CFH closed before Clinesmith's illegal shortcut alteration of a FISA application. Therefore, "Clinesmith's case", tried and convicted by Durham, was "unrelated" to the CFH investigation, which had already closed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC) |
Accidental revert
Hi! I saw that you reverted and then restored my edit at Homeopathy. No worries about that, I was fully expecting someone to revert it because they didn't notice what I had changed at first :) In my opinion, Template:Multiref is an amazing tool and I wish its use were more widespread. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. When there are four or more refs in one spot, it's really handy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Multiref is intended to be used with shortened references." Good point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- That‘s true, but it‘s still very useful with full length refs imo Actualcpscm (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how this works. Actualcpscm, will shortened refs that refer to full refs in the template still work? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- From my testing, invoking named refs (as in WP:NAMEDREF) does not work. Shortened ones work perfectly fine, and so do the usual templates (cite journal, book, web, etc). Weirdly enough, assigning a name to a reference in Multiref breaks it and causes it to render as the source text. So it takes some markup, but not all. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how this works. Actualcpscm, will shortened refs that refer to full refs in the template still work? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- That‘s true, but it‘s still very useful with full length refs imo Actualcpscm (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Multiref is intended to be used with shortened references." Good point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Page moved
Hi again. I noticed you created the page User:Valjean-Fringe theory dk, which I have boldly moved to your user subpage User:Valjean/Fringe theory dk. I've tagged the original page for deletion under U2 and G6. Cheers, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- OMG! Schminnte, thanks for catching that. I guess I accidentally used a dash instead of a slash. Thanks again. I have just experimented and discovered why that happened. My keyboard was still set to Danish (dk), and an English slash becomes a Danish dash. Duh! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
See: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
Biden and Trump performed similar actions, the withholding of financial aid to Ukraine, but for very different reasons.
Then-Vice President Biden withheld loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine into firing a corrupt prosecutor because he was not performing his job of fighting corruption, which included investigating Burisma and its corrupt owner, actions which would have placed Hunter Biden in more jeopardy, if he had been involved in corruption in Ukraine.
Then-President Trump unsuccessfully tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in a quid pro quo manner to start a publicly announced investigation of Burisma and the Bidens in exchange for the release of congressionally mandated financial and military aid to Ukraine and the promise of a Trump–Zelenskyy meeting at the White House. This predicated Trump's first impeachment charge of abuse of power. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Weird
Reddit went down at the moment WaPo reported charges against Trump were filed, which was around 21 minutes ago. It’s still not back up and nobody has been able to post reports about it or discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's back, but what is this about Trump? I have been eating and all media were turned off. Has it finally happened? Is there a God after all? Wow!!! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Federal prosecution of Donald Trump
Reade's "friend"
Good to see the cited source returned. Technically, the source doesn't say that Reade considered Butina to be her "long time friend," instead Reade just said that Butina was "my friend". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- AzureCitizen, that was my fairly accurate paraphrase of this: "We've known each other for quite some time now." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- In order to ensure we're on the same page here, are you saying that you were paraphrasing Reade saying "We've known each other for quite some time now"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. She also calls Butina a "friend", and those words imply a "long-time friendship". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the confirmation. Okay, the problem here (and the reason why I made this edit in the first place) is that it wasn't Reade who said that, it was Butina. Please read the source again carefully, it says "We've known each other for quite some time now," Butina said in asking Putin himself to “fast track” Reade’s citizenship request. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. She also calls Butina a "friend", and those words imply a "long-time friendship". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- In order to ensure we're on the same page here, are you saying that you were paraphrasing Reade saying "We've known each other for quite some time now"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
About DOBs
Hey, I thought you might benefit from some insight into how and why I became a stickler for unsourced DOBs.
Several years ago, I noticed that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info. The project had literally declared the pages exempt from needing sources (yes, really!).
As a result, almost none of the DOTY pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings - classic citogenesis.
So about 6 years ago the DOTY project found sanity and we now require all new entries on those pages to be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning DOTY pages up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.
The DOTY project members have asked participants to go through their birthday page and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available in the linked article. We've made significant progress, but there's still a lot of work to be done.
In the process of doing this, we've learned that many of the linked articles have no sources for the DOB, like in the case of Maggie Haberman before you fixed it, so many of us are cleaning a little more broadly than just the DOTY articles as we encounter unsourced DOBs.
Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I love it! This is a thoroughly admirable, and non-optional, POV. I believe that literally all content, other than "the sky is blue" type of info, must be backed by RS. Literally all. If anything might be questioned by a reasonable person (not a vandal), then a source should be added or the content removed. If it's probably true, then a cn tag should be added. If that issue is not resolved with a good RS within a reasonable amount of time, then it should be deleted. (Is there a place where we can see old tagged issues?)
- So how do we document nonsense (pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc.) that is only promoted by unreliable sources? It's often easy to do because RS mention it. Then we document it by citing the RS. We use the framing it gets from the RS. That places it in context as it relates to mainstream thought.
- So again, everything must be backed by RS, and we should only use an unreliable source in its own article per SPS and ABOUTSELF. There is more about all this on my user page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- As to ABOUTSELF. I put my date of birth down wrong by mistake in my last job application and they wished me happy birthday on the day. Very embarassing when I looked blank! 😀 🎈 NadVolum (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
A kind behavioral reminder
I saw your comment at [53] (someone like that) and found it distasteful; normally I wouldn't say anything but you are fresh off an WP:AE discussion about similar behavior, and you are an experienced and prolific editor. Beccaynr's comment here [54] (be very careful when about talking about the personal characteristics of editors and to avoid suggesting that anyone is a representative for their particular (marginalized or majority) group.) seems apt. Striking that comment might be a good idea. Regards, SmolBrane (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I had no idea the editor was transgender and was not referring to anything remotely related to that topic. Where did you get that idea? Fringe and trans are very different matters. You do realize you're comparing apples to oranges by taking advice for a discussion on a very contentious LGBTQ article talk page (and in principle all article talk pages) and applying it to a discrete comment on a personal talk page? I did not name the editor, and it would be advisable for you to just drop it rather than deliberately trying to inflame the matter, as that form of disruption would be on you. We try to deflate issues, rather than inflame them. Remember the Streisand effect. If you press this, you will be at fault. I'm already aware of the danger and impropriety of personalizing issues on article talk pages. On private talk pages, we are allowed to make our views known. Fringe editors and/or those who tend to support fringe POV are often discussed in such places because the cause problems. Don't be seen as defending such behavior. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Trump's false claims of "no collusion"
The "no collusion" phrase and narrative are Trump's lies, unfortunately often repeated by reliable sources. There is no evidence Mueller ever said such a thing. here's some reading for you:
- False or misleading statements by Donald Trump#Denial of collusion with Russia
- False or misleading statements by Donald Trump#Special counsel investigation
- Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion
- Mueller report#False "no collusion" claims
- We need to make a whole article about Trump's false claims of "no collusion"
So it's okay to say that Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination", even though there is some evidence for it, but it's not okay to say that Mueller did not find evidence of "collusion" or that there was "no collusion" between Trump and his campaign with the Russians. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- We go by what RS say. If RS says "no collusion," then that's what we will say on Wikipedia, regardless of your personal opinions on the matter. The Mueller Report concluded in plain language that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," widely reported in RS, so that's what our content will reflect. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- You just don't get it. You're mixing terms. It's not my opinion. I am documenting what RS say, and the fact that many RS mistakenly say "no collusion", in spite of the fact that Mueller did not say that. We document mistaken opinions here. We do not make the mistake of believing them or confusing opinions for facts. That's where you go wrong, and you've been doing it for years. Are you incapable of learning?
- FACT: Mueller "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated"
- MYTH: Mueller said "no collusion" or that there was "no collusion". Both are myths and repetitions of Trump's falsehoods, and many RS fell into that trap. We document that.
- Use the right words. (Do you even understand the difference? Is English your second language?) Now which articles are getting it wrong? Name them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Ping Mr Ernie. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- We document what RS say. If Mueller said conspired or coordinated but RS say collusion we report what RS say. That's basic WP policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes? We document both facts and opinions, even false opinions like that there was no collusion. It's foolish to believe such false opinions, even if they are found in RS.
- You are not addressing what I wrote above. Are there any articles where we're getting this wrong? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- We document what RS say. If Mueller said conspired or coordinated but RS say collusion we report what RS say. That's basic WP policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Facts:
- Trump and his campaign colluded in myriad ways with the Russians and aided them in their interference in our elections.
- Trump and his campaign lied about it and claimed there was "no collusion".
- Rudy Giuliani admitted that Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians.
- Many RS make the mistake of using the words "no collusion", even though they are false.
- Trump may well have conspired and coordinated with the Russians.
- Mueller was unable to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination", partially because Trump obstructed the investigation and much evidence was withheld or destroyed.
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Notice
Discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice. Look at the talk page for a discussion of why the comment is relevant to the article. Thanks. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have replied there. Comments that out and attack editors are not good content. Discuss content, not editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Autigender
could you add autigender or autism gender please? ParticularDarling (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide links. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Autigender ParticularDarling (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
https://www.shoretherapycenter.com/blog/autigender-autism-gender-identity#:~:text=Autigender%20is%20a%20term%20that,be%20separated%20from%20one%20another ParticularDarling (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of those are RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- What’s Rs? I’m sorry! ParticularDarling (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @ParticularDarling see WP:RS. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Here’s more sources I found! https://www.google.com/books/edition/Trans_Bodies_Trans_Selves/gN5eEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22autigender%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA85&printsec=frontcover ParticularDarling (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5118/4/1/10 ParticularDarling (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299716.2023.2214134 ParticularDarling (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- What’s Rs? I’m sorry! ParticularDarling (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Valjean! At last, we see each other plain.
Nice username ;)
If you're unaware, Les Mis is touring again in the US; hope you get a chance to see it (I'm guessing again) this time around. Happy almost-Bastille Day! Combefere ★ Talk 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- "Valjean, at last, we see each other plain" I would love to see it. I saw it in Copenhagen. It's my favorite book and musical. You might enjoy this. The young revolutionaries. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I found the tour website. If I'm lucky, I might be able to get tickets. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Lea Salonga. After Miss Saigon, she also did Les Mis and was in both the 10th and 25th anniversary concerts. Her version of "On My Own" is by far the most viewed on YouTube. Absolute perfection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree! The 10th Anniversary Concert is my favorite rendition. I have tickets for this tour; I don't expect them to match the performance of that incredibly cast, but I am excited to see it again and to share the experience with a partner who has never been.
- Also, since you're a fellow fan of the book (there's dozens of us!), might I recommend the Les Miserables Reading Companion Podcast (also on Spotify) by Briana Lewis? She's a professor of French language and history at Allegheny College. She goes through and explains a lot of the culture and context and even etymology that get lost in translation from the original French to the English novels, chapter by chapter. I found her analysis and commentary as mesmerizing and interesting and Hugo's. Combefere ★ Talk 19:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's the full 10th Anniversary concert. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Please
Hello, could you help me improve this English in this article Kevin Peraza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Peraza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.223.137 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Rest assured
I'm convinced of your pro-vaccine bona fides, and I think your !vote in the RfC is right on the money.
I'm also grateful that your comments have prompted me to look for examples of good organization to follow. Right now I'm flipping through the political biographies that have made it to Featured status; I didn't know that John Adams and Vladimir Lenin were both on that list! XOR'easter (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
RFK Jr.
| Move to article talk space. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The RFC clearly states that there is no consensus to remove "propaganda". Yes, some voters favor "misinformation", however, more favor "propaganda". So why "no"? --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
BLP issue
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Bias
You are an absolute left-wing nut job. I suggest you seek therapy relating to your rampant TDS and anti-Fox bent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanoflaw049 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I initially deleted this personal attack, but it needs to be on display. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- And that is the reason you reverted my edits. You did not actually read the edits, you simply reverted because you saw I made the change. It is this type of personal vendetta that should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. Themanoflaw049 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Your attack (revealing your own bias...the irony!) brought you on my radar. I saw that your very first edit, and several other edits, used accusations of left-wing bias as their reasoning, and that raised a red flag over a politically-motivated editor trying to RGW. Having a POV is one thing (we all have them), but using it to remove what you see as bias, even though it's based on RS, is not right. I then looked at your latest edits and saw a huge deletion without any consensus. It read it and it looked dubious, so I decided to revert in hopes of getting a discussion going. Instead, you edit warred and brought the matter here instead of starting a discussion on the talk page, per BRD. Next time, follow the proper procedure and don't make it personal. Don't accuse other editors of bias when yours is so obvious and you clearly state it as your motivation when editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- And that is the reason you reverted my edits. You did not actually read the edits, you simply reverted because you saw I made the change. It is this type of personal vendetta that should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. Themanoflaw049 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This is all getting tiresome, so I'm taking the highly unusual step of banning you, Themanoflaw049, from my talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Edit War
You are the one that engaged the edit war with me on 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. I gave a reason for deleting a very poorly-written section and you reverted with no explanation. Give your reason for reversion and we can have a discussion. But as it stands, you are the one engaging in edit warring and you are the one who started it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanoflaw049 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- You've been here long enough to know how BRD works. A violation of BRD is edit warring. You made a bold change and it was reverted. It is then your duty to use discussion as the way forward. Instead you choose to try to force your version. That violates BRD and is classic edit warring. Your actions will now be used against you in the future. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, and you are the one who violated BRD. You even reverted a simple word change where I took out the word "bias" when dealing with pro-Republican turnout. That minor change does not require a full discussion on the talk page and you know it. You did not give an explanation for why you reverted and therefore you violated BRD. I reverted back due to no explanation, it seems that you are the one that does not want to have a discussion. Themanoflaw049 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Don't try to gaslight me. You deleted THREE PARAGRAPHS! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- When another editor objects to your bold change, you must not try to force your version through. The second time I mentioned BRD so you'd get the point. You ignored that and again tried to force your version through. An explanation is not necessary. That can happen in the talk page section you open to discuss the matter. You should know that deleting such a large amount of longstanding and properly-sourced content will get a reaction, and you got it but didn't take the cue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- And? Quantity has literally zero bearing if the quality is not even close to being up-to-par. Maybe you should have actually read what was deleted instead of power-tripping and reverting without explanation. Also maybe try looking up gaslighting, you seem to have a limited grasp on its meaning. You reverted with zero explanation, so I assumed you had not read what was actually deleted. You also separately reverted a two word deletion, so don't act like it's all about "THREE PARAGRAPHS!!!!!" Themanoflaw049 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, and you are the one who violated BRD. You even reverted a simple word change where I took out the word "bias" when dealing with pro-Republican turnout. That minor change does not require a full discussion on the talk page and you know it. You did not give an explanation for why you reverted and therefore you violated BRD. I reverted back due to no explanation, it seems that you are the one that does not want to have a discussion. Themanoflaw049 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
All of this should have been discussed on the article's talk page, rather than here. That's how BRD works. Instead you just decided to keep on attacking me on my own talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:Dusti, you are confused. A bold edit was reverted by me, and instead of following BRD, the editor (above) is trying to force their version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I warned both of you. You're at 2RR, the other user is at 3RR and could be blocked. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Next time, do not warn the person making a reversion of a bold edit and then enforcing BRD. It's not BRRD. The first violation of BRD is the edit warring, and I was not the one who violated BRD. Opposition to edit warring is not edit warring, just as opposition to racism is not racism. I tried to stop the edit warring by restoring the status quo version pending a discussion that would seek a consensus version. That has not happened. Slapping a warning on the good faith editor is damaging. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you continue to revert the other individual, you're just as wrong as they are. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have not continued, and enforcing BRD is not "continueing". There are rules against edit warring, and I was just trying one attempt to stop it. The other editor still refuses to respect that, so you are welcome to revert them. Not all reversions are equal. Think about that. You are welcome to try to take my action to a dramaboard. You will lose miserably and get a trouting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Who said anything about taking you to a dramaboard? The above notice was simply that - a notice (or a warning) that if you continued, you could be blocked for edit warring. You've stopped. That's what matters. If the other editor doesn't stop, they'll be blocked. I believe you are the one who is taking this to dramatics at the moment. I have no further comment on this and will not reply further. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I did nothing out of the ordinary of what experienced editors do. We oppose edit warring and revert back to the status quo version, and do not get templated. I usually make one attempt, and that's what I did in this situation. It didn't work.
- The one who violates BRD is the one who gets templated. Next time, analyze the situation. BRD is a fool proof way to figure out who starts an edit war. It is the one who violates it. Undoing that violation is not really edit warring (although it can appear to be so by someone who doesn't examine the context), but rather restoring things back to where they should be while a discussion occurs. We try to get offenders to stop forcing their version through, and such attempts to stop them should not be punished by templating experienced editors. Context matters. Look at who is trying to force their version (the bold change).
- Context matters. Things are not always as they appear. Don't be superficial. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Who said anything about taking you to a dramaboard? The above notice was simply that - a notice (or a warning) that if you continued, you could be blocked for edit warring. You've stopped. That's what matters. If the other editor doesn't stop, they'll be blocked. I believe you are the one who is taking this to dramatics at the moment. I have no further comment on this and will not reply further. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have not continued, and enforcing BRD is not "continueing". There are rules against edit warring, and I was just trying one attempt to stop it. The other editor still refuses to respect that, so you are welcome to revert them. Not all reversions are equal. Think about that. You are welcome to try to take my action to a dramaboard. You will lose miserably and get a trouting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you continue to revert the other individual, you're just as wrong as they are. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Next time, do not warn the person making a reversion of a bold edit and then enforcing BRD. It's not BRRD. The first violation of BRD is the edit warring, and I was not the one who violated BRD. Opposition to edit warring is not edit warring, just as opposition to racism is not racism. I tried to stop the edit warring by restoring the status quo version pending a discussion that would seek a consensus version. That has not happened. Slapping a warning on the good faith editor is damaging. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I warned both of you. You're at 2RR, the other user is at 3RR and could be blocked. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Long articles
People sometimes object to article length, but that is rarely a real problem. If they have difficulty downloading the article, it often turns out they just have too many tabs open in their browser, so the problem is on their side. (They should use Firefox.) They shouldn't try to edit the whole article anyway, at least not on a phone. They should edit sections, and no cellphone will object to that.
As long as an article is split into appropriate sections with good headings it will work fine as is. Especially list articles and articles full of nitty gritty important facts are not things people "read" as if they were a narrative or story. They are used to find facts, and the search function is the tool used to "read" them, so splitting the article would be a huge disservice to those trying to find information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Formal request to 'cease and desist' your harassment
| Hat bizarre personal attack. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sir (or Madam). Several weeks ago, you disagreed with my edits on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation you dug-into my history and made various accusations, including that my ad-hoc checking of the "minor edit" box, <redact personal attack> This is a formal request for you to stay-away from me. I am not on this site often, and to be confronted by you twice in a few weeks is noticeable. <redact personal attack> I thank you in advance for your respect for my wishes. BlueSapphires (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Missing gaps in Trump coverage
I really don’t know where to begin, but some of the gaps are egregious, possibly even misleading. I may update you as time permits for help. Here’s the first glaring example;
- Withdrawal from NATO: this article says "Donald Trump expressed interest in withdrawing from the organization during his 2016 presidential campaign."
Most historians know that Trump first expressed interest in withdrawing from NATO in 1987, when he paid for a full page ad in the NYT, WaPo, and Boston Globe criticizing US foreign policy and promoting Russian talking points which undermined NATO.
The Guardian:
In 1987…Trump and Ivana visited Moscow and St Petersburg for the first time. Shvets said he was fed KGB talking points and flattered by KGB operatives who floated the idea that he should go into politics…The ex-major recalled: “For the KGB, it was a charm offensive. They had collected a lot of information on his personality so they knew who he was personally. The feeling was that he was extremely vulnerable intellectually, and psychologically, and he was prone to flattery…“This is what they exploited. They played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality and believed this is the guy who should be the president of the United States one day: it is people like him who could change the world. They fed him these so-called active measures soundbites and it happened. So it was a big achievement for the KGB active measures at the time.”…Soon after he returned to the US, Trump began exploring a run for the Republican nomination for president and even held a campaign rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. On 1 September, he took out a full-page advert in the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe headlined: “There’s nothing wrong with America’s Foreign Defense Policy that a little backbone can’t cure.”[55]
Is Trump an unwitting Russian asset? Who knows, but Wikipedia articles are missing a lot of info that connects the dots. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Amen! He's both witting and unwitting. He doesn't care about loyalty to country, national security, or truth, a concept he wars against. Luke Harding, the Steele dossier, and others have written about how Russian intelligence has carefully cultivated him for decades to be their asset, and they have succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. Do a Google search with this phrase: Trump has been treated well by Russian intelligence over the years. There is enough on the topic for a whole article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Aside from our articles on Active Measures (film), Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies, and Russian espionage in the United States (and all the many ancillary articles connected to those topics), it is odd that we have no Donald Trump as a Russian asset hypothesis or something similar and more direct. What kind of article title would you like to see? I'm just spitballing, so feel free to speak informally as to what you might imagine happening in terms of article title naming, development, etc. It sounds like something worth collaborating on, but obviously fraught with controversial reactions from the usual suspects. (In other words, "they" [you know who they are] will take it straight to AfD the moment it is created, etc.) Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wow. Talk about conspiracy theory nuttery. Themanoflaw049 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The hypothesis is the subject of several books, and the leaders of all the top U.S. intelligence agencies have directly and openly expressed such concerns (and no one would know better), so there is room for such an article here. Keep in mind the difference between an agent, an unwitting agent, and an asset. Many people easily become unwitting assets. Trump acts like one. He has glibly handed classified info to Russians, endangering assets and sources. This caused all of our allies intelligence agencies to stop sharing information with us. That was all because of Trump’s total disregard for our national security. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Talk page deleted section
Hi Valjean
I noticed you deleted a message someone left on my talk page before I was able to read it. I understand it's not AGF but I want to keep the post on my talk page since it's my talk page. I dont really agree with deleting talk page content unless it's really necessary.
Since I dont know, what are the rules, etc for user talk pages? Why did you delete it? The comments the banned user made on the RFK discussion were not deleted? You even said yourself that you prefer to archive messages.
I wish to add it back, unless you explain why it cannot be.
Thank you. Opok2021 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP:Advocacy of fringe POV is forbidden here, including in personal userspace, and personal attacks are routinely deleted. The included source was worse than just a junk source and the author of that article is a notoriously unreliable voice. There is nothing worth keeping in that posting and anyone who shares or sympathizes with such views and sources should be permabanned. Yes, I'm looking at YOU.
- You are skating on very thin ice and reveal a serious lack of WP:CIR. Learn to vet sources for reliability (and stop getting your info from bad sources). Don't voice or defend fringe views. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Define Better Sources
You reverted a respected source on the Israeli TransJordanian conflict. why? 96.81.123.61 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring (bogus)
| Bogus warning. Now that user is blocked. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav214 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |